Stаte of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arron A. Reeves, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14AP-856 (C.P.C. No. 14CR-2911)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
August 13, 2015
[Cite as State v. Reeves, 2015-Ohio-3251.]
KLATT, J.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on August 13, 2015
Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Valerie Swanson, for appellee.
Yeura R. Venters, Public Defender, and Timothy E. Pierce, for appellant.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
KLATT, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant, Arron A. Reeves, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the Franklin Cоunty Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{2} On June 2, 2014, a Franklin County Grand Jury indicted appellant with one count of domestic violence in violation of
II. Appellant‘s Appeal
{3} Appellant appeals and assigns the following errors:
[1.] The lower court abused its discretion and imposed a sentence contrary to law when it ordered Appellant to serve a term of incarceration in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution and
R.C. 2953.08(A)(4) and (G).[2.] The lower court abused its discretion and imposed a sentence contrary to law when it ordered Appellant to serve eightеen (18) months’ incarceration, the maximum prison term for felonies of the fourth degree, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution and
R.C. 2953.08(A)(1)(a) .
A. First Assignment of Error-Was Appellant‘s Sentence Contrary to Law?
{4} We initially set forth our standard of review. We do not review a trial court‘s sentence for an abuse of discretion. Instead, we must determine whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that the sentence is contrary to law. State v. Mercier, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-906, 2014-Ohio-2910, ¶ 4. Applying that standard, we look to the record to determine whether the sentencing court considered and properly applied the statutory guidelines and whether the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. State v. Burton, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-690, 2007-Ohio-1941, ¶ 19; State v. Stubbs, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-810, 2014-Ohio-3696, ¶ 15; State v. White, 1st Dist. No. C-130114, 2013-Ohio-4225, ¶ 9-10.
{5} Appellant first argues that his sentence was not consistent with or proportional to sentences in other cаses involving domestic violence in violation of
{6} The consistency and proportionality requirements of
{7} Here, the trial court wrote in its judgment entry imposing sentence that it “considerеd the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in
{8} Appellant also argues that his prison sentence violates the sentencing principles found in
A court that sentencеs an offender for a felony shall be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.
{9} Although resource burdens are a relevant sentencing criterion under
{10} Appellant also argues that trial court improperly weighed the
{11} Appellant has not demonstrated that his sentence is contrary to law. Accordingly, we overrule appellant‘s first assignment of error.
B. Second Assignment of Error-Did the Trial Court Impose a Maximum Sentence for Improper Reasons?
{12} Appellant next argues that the trial court sеntenced him to a maximum prison term for his domestic violence conviction because the trial court felt that he had evaded responsibility for the abduction charge by entering into a plea agreement with the state. We disagree.
{13} Appellant premises his argument on his interpretation of comments the trial court madе at sentencing. Specifically, the trial court told appellant that “you did a wonder getting rid of that F3 [the abduction count] because I would have double stacked those bad boys in a heartbeat. He made sure that I didn‘t get a real chance at you.” (Tr. 10.) While appellant interprets those comments as indicating retribution, we interpret
{14} In fact, the trial court was clеar why it imposed maximum sentences, and it did not involve appellant‘s plea agreement: it was his own conduct. At sentencing, the trial court noted that it twice listened to the victim‘s 911 call while the offenses were occurring and that:
It was a rant and rave over jealousy. * * * It was just a rant, and it was almost psychotic. No one deserves to be hit, period. And the rage that was on there, I have some real problems with it. I think I really need to protect society here. I must say it‘s not the worst DV I‘ve ever seen; it‘s not even in the top ten. But his ranting and raving, I think a maximum sentence is appropriate to protect the public and not to demean the seriousness of the offense. That much rage and anger, it didn‘t last for seconds. It went on and on and on. And I can justify everything.
(Tr. 10.)
{15} The trial court further commented that it had “to justify what I did. It‘s to protect society. With thesе rantings and ravings, I‘m sorry about your daughter. I‘m sorry you‘re facing that, but I can‘t justify anything but this sentence.” (Tr. 10.) These comments make it clear why the trial court chose to impose a maximum prison term.
{16} For these reasons, we reject appellant‘s argument that the trial court improperly imposed a maximum prison term based on his plea agreement. Accordingly, we overrule his second assignment of error.
III. Conclusion
{17} Having overruled appellant‘s two assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
TYACK and HORTON, JJ., concur.