State v. RichState v. Rich
Jonathan N. Fox, 8310 Princeton-Glendale Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for defendant-appellant
RINGLAND, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Daniel Guy Rich, appeals from a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to a total prison term of 72 months. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On May 17, 2013, appellant, while intoxicated, drove his uninsured vehicle down Route 73 in Middletown, Ohio and collided with an oncoming vehicle driven by Rose
{¶ 3} Appellant was subsequently indicted for six counts, including: (1) three counts of aggravated vehicular assault in violation of
{¶ 4} The parties reached a plea agreement. As a result, appellant pled guilty to the first two counts of aggravated vehicular assault. The remaining charges contained in the indictment were merged.
{¶ 5} The trial court ordered a presentence investigation and conducted a sentencing hearing. Appellant presented mitigating testimony offered by two individuals at the hearing. After hearing the evidence, the trial court sentenced appellant to 48 months in prison on count one and 24 months in prison on count two and ordered that those sentences be served consecutively. Appellant now appeals, raising three assignments of error for review.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY SENTENCING DEFENDANT TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.
{¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred by failing to make the findings required by
{¶ 9} Pursuant to
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section
2929.16 ,2929.17 , or2929.18 of the Revised Code , or was under post-release control for a prior offense.(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct.
(c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶ 10} “A trial court satisfies the statutory requirement of making the required findings when the record reflects that the court engaged in the required analysis and selected the appropriate statutory criteria.” Setty at ¶ 113, citing State v. Sturgill, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2013-01-002, 2013-Ohio-4648, ¶ 48. When imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court is not required to articulate reasons to support its findings, or “to give a talismanic incantation of the words of the statute.” State v. Bonnell, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 29. However, the record must be sufficient for a reviewing court to determine that the court has engaged in the required sentencing analysis and has made the findings required by the
{¶ 11} Here, the record reflects that the trial court made the findings required by
The sentences will run consecutive to one another.
The Court will find under the circumstances of this case that the presumption regarding concurrent sentences has been rebutted. That * * * it is necessary that consecutive sentences be imposed in order to adequately protect the public, punish the Defendant, and that the imposition of consecutive sentences is not disproportionate.
And I‘ll further find that the harm is so great or unusual that a single term does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the Defendant‘s conduct. And the Defendant‘s criminal history shows that consecutive terms are needed to protect the public.
The trial court‘s findings were also journalized in its sentencing entry.
{¶ 12} From the trial court‘s statements at the sentencing hearing and the language utilized in the sentencing entry, it is clear that the trial court complied with the dictates of
{¶ 13} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 14} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY CONSIDERING NON-STATUTORY SENTENCING FACTORS.
{¶ 15} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred by considering nonstatutory factors in the imposition of his prison term. Specifically, appellant complains the trial court inappropriately considered evidence that he did not have a driver‘s license or automobile insurance at the time of the accident. As a result, appellant argues that his sentence is contrary to law. We disagree.
{¶ 16} “The standard of review set forth in
{¶ 17} Instead, an appellate court may take any action authorized under
{¶ 18} According to
{¶ 19} Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated vehicular assault in violation of
{¶ 20} In making its sentencing decision, the trial court considered all of the relevant seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in
The Court has considered the purposes and principles of sentencing. The Court has weighed the recidivism and the seriousness factors.
* * *
The Court will find that the Defendant in this case was cooperative. He is remorseful. I don‘t think he‘s an ill spirited or mean person. He‘s probably a great guy. But he‘s made some very bad, very poor decisions regarding when he should drive, what he should drive, whether he should have insurance. And all those bad decisions culminated on this evening to cause some very serious injuries to some innocent people.
{¶ 21} Based on our review, we find no error in the trial court‘s imposition of sentence. The court considered the relevant seriousness factors and other relevant factors as set forth
{¶ 22} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 23} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT TREATING THE TWO COUNTS OF AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR ASSAULT AS ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT.
{¶ 24} In his third assignment of error, appellant alleges the trial court erred by failing to merge the two counts of aggravated vehicular assault. Appellant‘s argument is without merit.
{¶ 25} The Ohio Supreme Court has set forth a test to determine whether offenses are allied offenses of similar import under
{¶ 26} If it is possible to commit both offenses with the same conduct, the court must
{¶ 27} As we have previously held, “where a defendant‘s conduct injures multiple victims, the defendant may be convicted and sentenced for each offense involving a separate victim. State v. Phelps, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2009-09-243, 2010-Ohio-3257, ¶ 16; State v. Watkins, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120567, 2013-Ohio-4222, ¶ 16 (“where * * * an offense is defined in terms of conduct towards ‘another,’ there is a dissimilar import for each person affected by the conduct“).
{¶ 28} Here, appellant‘s conduct caused serious physical harm to three victims and seriously endangered a fourth victim, a four-month-old child. The injuries sustained by Caskey were particularly devastating, as she was thrown from the vehicle and sustained a broken pelvis and was confined to a wheelchair. In addition, the driver and passenger, Rose Hughes and William Hughes also suffered injuries as a result of the accident. As a result of a plea bargain, appellant pled guilty to only two counts of aggravated vehicular assault. Accordingly, the trial court properly sentenced appellant to two counts of aggravated vehicular assault. Appellant‘s third assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 29} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.