State v. PattersonState v. Patterson
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 17, 2022
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Gregory M. Paul, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Law Office of Timothy Farrell Sweeney and Timothy F. Sweeney, for appellant.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Clover Patterson appeals from a judgment of the trial court sentencing him to an indefinite sentence of 12 to 15 years for his offenses of felonious assault, endangering children, domestic violence, and
{¶ 2} First, Patterson argues the indefinite sentence imposed by the trial court pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional because the law violates a defendant‘s right to a jury trial, due process, and separation of powers. Patterson‘s arguments regarding the Reagan Tokes Law as defined in
{¶ 3} Second, Patterson argues his sentence is not supported by the record and contrary to law, citing this court‘s en banc decision in State v. Jones, 2018-Ohio-498, 105 N.E.3d 702 (8th Dist.). As we explain in the following, Patterson‘s claim lacks merit.
{¶ 4} Patterson pleaded guilty to felonious assault and endangering children, both second-degree felonies. These offenses related to his abuse of his son D.P. He also pleaded guilty to domestic violence, a third-degree felony, menacing by stalking, a fourth-degree felony, and telecommunications harassment, a first-degree misdemeanor. These offenses were committed against his former wife, T.P. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state dismissed the remaining counts in the 12-count indictment against Patterson.
{¶ 5} On January 1, 2021, the court held a sentencing hearing. The prosecutor represented to the court that the victim T.P. had reported 10 to 15 years
{¶ 6} T.P. called her home “the house of horrors.” She described how she, D.P., and a younger son were forced to clean up their own blood on the walls after being assaulted by Patterson. She described how she had been “gutted like a fish.” In a 2018 incident, he “keyed [her] in [her] head” and was placed on probation for the resulting misdemeanor conviction. While he was still on probation for the conviction, he had her son hold her down and beat her in the mouth. Patterson‘s son D.P. also provided chilling details of Patterson‘s abuse. He stated that for almost all his life, he lived with physical, verbal, and emotional abuse from his father. Patterson would beat him and his brother with “pipes, sticks, branches“; he once carved and sawed a wooden board and put nails in it, and then used it to “take [their] skin off” and “just let the blood run down [their] behind.” Patterson also “acted as if beating [them] to the point [they] go unconscious is love.”
{¶ 7} Patterson addressed the court on his own behalf. He stated “[i]f I did all those things, I‘m sorry“; “I know that I have been out of it“; and “I will do anything to make this change. I didn‘t mean to hurt them.” The mitigation report indicates Patterson has never been to prison and may suffer from an unspecified bipolar disorder due to his history of manic and depressive symptoms.
{¶ 9} In imposing a sentence for a felony, the trial court is to consider the sentencing purposes set forth in
{¶ 10} In determining the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles set forth in
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12} Here, before imposing the sentence, the trial court stated it had reviewed the presentence investigation report and the mitigation of penalty report. The court also stated it had considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing pursuant to
{¶ 13} Patterson argues that his sentence should be reversed because the record does not support the long sentence he received, citing this court‘s en banc opinion in Jones, 2018-Ohio-498, 105 N.E.3d 702 (this court held that
{¶ 14} “Nothing in
{¶ 15} Rather, when reviewing a felony sentence that is imposed after a consideration of
{¶ 16} Patterson also claims the trial court should have provided its reasons for the consecutive-sentence findings required by
{¶ 17} Under the very limited review we engage in regarding felony sentences, therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court for Patterson‘s offenses.
{¶ 18} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
N.B. Judge Anita Laster Mays is constrained to apply Delvallie‘s en banc decision. For a full explanation of her analysis, see State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470 (Laster Mays, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Judge Eileen T. Gallagher joined the dissent by Judge Lisa B. Forbes in Delvallie and would have found that