State v. RiceState v. Rice
Rendered on the 14th day of January, 2011.
AMY M. SMITH, Atty. Reg. No. 0081712, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 50 E. Columbia Street, 4th Floor, P. O. Box 1608, Springfield, Ohio 45501
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JEREMY M. TOMB, Atty. Reg. No. 0079664, 124 West Main Street, Troy, Ohio 45373
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
DONOVAN, J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Appeal of Michelle Rice, filed January 21, 2010. On September 9, 2009, Rice was indicted on one count of receiving stolen property, in violation of
{¶ 2} Rice asserts one assignment of error as follows:
{¶ 3} “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN SENTENCING MS. RICE TO MAXIMUM SENTENCES WHEN ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION INDICATED SHE SHOULD RECEIVE COMMUNITY CONTROL.”
{¶ 4} At sentencing, counsel for Rice advised the court that Rice “continues to seek treatment for her bipolar disorder,” and that Rice had been “working with her grandfather * * * doing some odd jobs around the house to kind of reestablish a bond and a trust between the two of them.” Defense counsel requested that Rice be sentenced to community control. When asked if she had anything to say, Rice responded, “Nothing more than just to let my grandpa know that I’m sorry.” Rice’s grandfather also asked the court to give Rice “probation and make her go to intensive doctors for a chemical imbalance. I think she has a chemical imbalance to where she just doesn’t think right.”
{¶ 5} Prior to the imposition of sentence, the following exchange occurred:
{¶ 6} “THE COURT: * * * You have a prior theft conviction in June 2007. You committed three felony offenses in the summer of 2009. Your codefendant [sic], Mr.
{¶ 7} “MS. MARLOW: Your Honor, my client indicates that while she was the named beneficiary of the food stamps, she was providing those food stamps to her mother while she was providing care to her son while she gets her mental illness treated.
{¶ 8} “THE COURT: You lost your children, so for some reason or another you are not capable of caring for them. So in reviewing all of the circumstances I don’t see any positives, and there must be some punishment for the felony offenses that you have committed.”
{¶ 9} “In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, * * * 2008-Ohio-4912, the Ohio Supreme Court attempted to resolve the standard for reviewing trial court sentencing decisions after State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-256. * * * [T]he court held that appellate courts must adopt a two-step approach. They must examine the sentencing court’s compliance with all applicable rules and statutes to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The court noted that a sentence outside the permissible statutory range is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The court stated, if the first prong is satisfied, the trial court decision shall be reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard using
{¶ 10} “* * *
{¶ 11} “Our review standard was further complicated by the Supreme Court opinion in State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, * * *2006-Ohio-855, where the court held that trial
{¶ 12} “The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.
{¶ 13} “‘Abuse of discretion’ has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. (Internal citation omitted). It is to be expected that most instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary.
{¶ 14} “A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision. It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de
{¶ 15}
GRADY, P.J., and FAIN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Amy M. Smith
Jeremy M. Tomb
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter