State v. SaundersState v. Saunders
Atty. Bernard C. Battistel, 2021 Sunset Boulevard, Steubenville, Ohio 43952, for Defendant-Appellant.
Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} Appellant’s conviction stems from the injuries he inflicted on a twelve-month old child left in his care by the child’s mothеr, who was a co-defendant. On or around April 5, 2015, the minor child sustained a skull fracture, broken arms, a broken leg, broken ribs and broken toe as a result of being pulled out of his crib and thrown down the steps by Appellant. Appellant, who is 6’5” аnd weighs 345 pounds, contended that he was under the influence of drugs and fell down the stairs with the child. However, medical expert testimony established the child’s injuries were the result of child abuse, and not as the result of an accident. The rеcord also establishes that Appellant waited approximately 15 days before seeking medical care for the child. The child was transported to Pittsburgh, where portions of his skull were removed due to brain swelling, resulting in blindness аnd a permanent shunt in his skull to relieve pressure. The child recovered 90% of his eyesight several months later, but will remain developmentally delayed as a result of his injuries.
{¶4} On April 17, 2017, a bill of information was filed charging Appellant with one count of felonious assault in violation of
{¶5} On May 9, 2017, a sentencing hearing was held. Testimony was presented by Jennifer Wolford, M.D., Clinical Director at the UPMC Division of Child Advocacy, who had examined and treated the child. The child’s grandmother also gave a victim impact statement. At the conclusion of the testimony, Appellant was sentenced to the maximum term of eight years of imprisonment. The state filed a request to nolle prosequi the indictment in cаse no. 16-CR-78.
{¶6} Appellant now files this timely appeal presenting a single assignment of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶7} Appellant’s main argument on appeal is that the trial court’s imposition of a maximum sentence is contrary to law.
{¶8} Appellant was convicted of felonious assault, a second degree felony, and sentenced to the maximum sentence of eight years in prison. See
{¶9} “The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make аny findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v. King, 2013-Ohio-2021, 992 N.E.2d 491, ¶ 45 (2d Dist.). In exercising that discretion, a trial court must consider the statutory principles that apply in felony cases, including those found within
{¶11}
A sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentenсing * * * commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct and its impact upon the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders.
{¶12}
{¶13}
{¶14} In Appellant’s sentencing judgment entry, the trial court referred to the purposes and principles of sentencing, including proteсting the public from future crime by the offender and to punish the offender using the minimum sanctions to accomplish these purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on government resources. (6/12/17 J.E., p. 1.) See
{¶16} Appellant contends that the trial сourt did not properly consider factors showing he was unlikely to commit future crimes, stating he had not been adjudicated a delinquent child and he was remorseful. Again, the trial court expressly noted that Appellant had a priоr felony conviction and he was on drugs at the time of the instant offense. The trial court also stated:
And I find that there is no genuine -- genuine remorse and let me tell you why. I appreciate -- the Court appreciates [Apрellant counsel’s] comments in that just exactly what does a defendant need to do to exhibit remorse. Well, the Court has the opportunity to listen to defendants all the time about their appreciation of their actiоns.
There was nothing at plea proceedings that indicated that there was any remorse of any kind and I’ll tell you what a defendant doesn’t do. A defendant doesn’t laugh and scoff as [Appellant] did when he was called a monster initially by the State of Ohio. Someone who is remorseful doesn’t do that or roll their eyes when the Court is making comments.
(5/9/17 Tr., p. 35.)
{¶18} A sentencing court is not required to make speсial findings or provide reasons in support of those findings before imposing a maximum sentence. State v. Green, 7th Dist. No. 14 BE 0055, 2016-Ohio-4915, ¶ 116. Therefore, the trial court in this matter was not required to make statutory maximum sentencing findings or provide reasons in support of thosе findings in order to impose a sentence that is within the statutory range for the offense. Based on the foregoing, the record reflects that the trial court thoughtfully considered the statutory factors prior to imposing sentencе. Appellant’s assignment of error is without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Donofrio, J., concurs.
Robb, P.J., concurs.
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
This document constitutes a final judgment entry.