STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, - vs - DANIEL A. VANDERHOOF, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. 2013-L-036
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
November 25, 2013
[Cite as State v. Vanderhoof, 2013-Ohio-5366.]
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
Criminal Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 12 CR 000846. Judgment: Affirmed.
Vanessa R. Clapp, Assistant Public Defender, 125 East Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Defendant-Appellant).
OPINION
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Daniel A. Vanderhoof, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to an aggregate term of 16 years imprisonment followed by a 180-day term in the Lake County Jail. We affirm.
{¶2} In the early-morning hours of December 9, 2012, appellant was driving a vehicle in a residential neighborhood at speeds exceeding 60 mph. Appellant proceeded down a dead-end road, eventually crashing through an occupied home. Two
{¶3} Appellant was indicted on the following 11 counts: (1) aggravated vehicular assault, a felony of the second degree, in violation of
{¶4} Appellant later withdrew his previous plea of not guilty and entered pleas of guilty to counts one, two, and three. The court nolled the remaining counts in the indictment and ordered a presentence investigation report. The matter came on for sentencing and, after a hearing, the court sentenced appellant to a mandatory prison term of eight years on count one; a mandatory prison term of eight years on count two; and 180 days of local incarceration on count three. The court ordered the terms imposed for counts one and two to be served consecutively to each other, for an aggregate term of 16 years. The court further ordered the 180-day term of local incarceration to follow appellant‘s prison term. Finally, the court ordered appellant to pay $62,240.41 in restitution to his victims.
{¶5} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and assigns two errors for our review. His first assignment of error provides:
{¶6} “The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant-appellant to maximum and consecutive terms of imprisonment.”
{¶7} “[A]ppellate courts must apply a two-step approach when reviewing felony sentences. First, they must examine the sentencing court‘s compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. If this first prong is satisfied, the trial court‘s decision in imposing the term of imprisonment is reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard.” State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, ¶26.
{¶8} H.B. 86, which became effective on September 30, 2011, revived the language provided in former
{¶9}
{¶10} If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following:
{¶11} (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
{¶12} (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
{¶13} (c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶14} Appellant does not assert his sentence was contrary to law. And, the record is clear, the trial court imposed sentences within the applicable felony range and made the appropriate findings in support of consecutive sentences. Appellant‘s argument therefore focuses upon the trial court‘s exercise of discretion in imposing sentence. In particular, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give appropriate consideration and adequate weight to his genuine remorse, his acknowledgement of his problems with alcohol and his acceptance of responsibility. We do not agree.
{¶15} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated it had considered the relevant seriousness and recidivism factors set forth under
{¶16} There are a number of factors that make these crimes more serious. The victims, at least 2 of the victims suffered serious physical harm. Both of them came very close to death, based upon the physical harm done to them. The other child came close to serious physical harm. He was trapped in his toy [sic] in the room where you crashed into. The whole family suffered extreme psychological damage. Something that I would consider to along
{¶17} The foregoing statements demonstrate the court gave careful consideration to the circumstances of the crimes to which appellant plead as well as appellant‘s personal history, both at the time of sentencing and his previous conduct. And even though appellant expressed remorse on record, the court was not obligated to
{¶18} Appellant‘s first assignment of error is without merit.
{¶19} Appellant‘s second assignment of error provides:
{¶20} “The trial court violated the defendant-appellant‘s rights to Equal Protection and Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and under Sections 2, 10 and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution when it sentenced him contrary to
{¶21} Appellant asserts the trial court erred because its sentence was not consistent with the sentences for similar crimes committed by similar offenders. We do not agree.
{¶22}
{¶23} A sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in division (A) of this section, 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.
{¶24} This court has held that consistency in sentencing is not a matter of comparing similar offenders or similar cases. State v. DeMarco, 11th Dist. Lake App. No. 2007-L-130, 2008-Ohio-3511, ¶25. In holding that cases cannot be formulaically compared in the abstract, we recognize the circumstances and realities attaching to one
{¶25} As discussed above, the trial court gave careful and appropriate consideration to the relevant statutory guidelines when it imposed its sentence. We therefore hold the trial court‘s sentence was consistent pursuant to
{¶26} Appellant‘s second assignment of error lacks merit.
{¶27} For the reasons discussed in this opinion, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., concurs,
COLLEEN MARY O‘TOOLE, J., concurs in judgment only.