2006 Ohio 2401 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2006
{¶ 2} In May 2005, appellant was indicted for one count of cocaine trafficking and one count of marijuana trafficking, both fifth-degree felonies and both violations of R.C.
{¶ 3} Appellant now appeals, assigning three errors. In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the record does not support the common pleas court's decision to impose prison rather than community control. In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the record does not support the common pleas court's decision to impose a prison sentence greater than the minimum. In his third assignment of error, appellant argues that the common pleas court's decision to impose a prison sentence greater than the minimum violated appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004),
{¶ 4} An appellate court may not disturb an imposed sentence unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is not supported by the record, or is "otherwise contrary to law." R.C.
{¶ 5} We overrule appellant's first assignment of error. After reviewing the record, we conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the common pleas court's decision to impose prison rather than community control was unsupported by the record. Appellant's lengthy criminal history and the ineffectiveness of prior probationary measures strongly supported the court's decision. Additionally, we note that R.C.
{¶ 6} We overrule appellant's second assignment of error. Appellant has failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the common pleas court's decision to impose a prison sentence greater than the minimum was unsupported by the record. The pre-sentence investigation report, which indicated a lack of remorse, in addition to the testimony at the sentencing hearing, provided ample support for the court's conclusion that a prison sentence greater than the minimum was warranted.
{¶ 7} However, we sustain appellant's third assignment of error because we find that the common pleas court's decision to impose a prison sentence greater than the minimum was "otherwise contrary to law." In sentencing appellant to a prison sentence greater than the minimum, the court made a finding pursuant to R.C.
Walsh and Bressler, JJ., concur.