State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virgil J. Wolford, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19AP-284 (C.P.C. No. 18CR-2432)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
March 10, 2020
[Cite as State v. Wolford, 2020-Ohio-888.]
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on March 10, 2020
On brief: Ron O‘Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellee.
On brief: Yeura Venters, Public Defender, and Robert D. Essex, for appellant.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant, Virgil J. Wolford, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of one count of attempted felonious assault and two counts of aggravated menacing. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{2} In May 2018, the Franklin County Grand Jury indicted Wolford on one count of felonious assault in violation of
On May 1st, 2019, at 10:41 p.m., Columbus Police Officers responded to 573 Ryan Avenue on a stabbing out of domestic situation. The caller later identified as [C.K.] told the dispatcher that his father, the Defendant, Virgil Wolford, was on top of his mother, [B.K.]. [C.K.] told the dispatcher that [B.K.] had been stabbed during the altercation.
Officers arrived and made entry into the residence and conducted a search for the victim and the suspect. A body camera footage shows [B.K.] lying on her bed in a large pool of blood. Officers – then it appeared Mr. Wolford in the east bedroom. He was seated on the floor near the door entrance with a shotgun pointed to his head.
Mr. Wolford was told repeatedly to drop the shotgun. Mr. Wolford said no and refused to comply with multiple orders to drop the weapon. Mr. Wolford then pointed the shotgun at Officer Kracht. Officer Kracht fired his service weapon and struck Mr. Wolford.
After being shot, Mr. Wolford rolled on the floor to his right side, dropping the shotgun from his hands. Mr. Wolford then yelled “Kill me” at the officers.
Officer Dorsey observed Mr. Wolford reaching for his shotgun again. Officer Dorsey yelled, “He‘s reaching. He‘s reaching for it.” Officers again told Mr. Wolford to stay away from the weapon.
Mr. Wolford refused to comply while reaching for the shotgun, yelled “Kill me” again. Officer Dorsey fired his service weapon striking Mr. Wolford. Mr. Wolford pulled – rolled over his back and he was taken under control and handcuffed.
[B.K.] was treated at the scene, I believe. The report says that she was transported to an area hospital; however, my understanding is she refused really any medical treatment beyond a bandage. This all took place in Franklin County, Ohio.
(Mar. 6, 2019 Tr. at 12-14.) Wolford took no exception to the prosecutor‘s recitation of facts.
{4} Wolford timely appeals.
II. Assignment of Error
{5} Wolford assigns the following error for our review:
The trial court erred to the prejudice of the appellant when it imposed a maximum prison sentence based on a finding that is not supported by the record.
III. Discussion
{6} In his sole assignment of error, Wolford asserts the trial court erred in imposing a maximum prison sentence of 36 months for his felonious assault conviction based on a finding that is not supported by the record. This assignment of error is not well-taken.
{7} An appellate court will not reverse a trial court‘s sentencing decision unless the evidence is clear and convincing that either the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is contrary to law. State v. Ward, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-266, 2020-Ohio-465, ¶ 31. See State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1 (“an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court‘s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law“). “In determining whether a sentence is contrary to law, an appellate court must review the record to determine whether the trial court considered the appropriate statutory factors, made the required findings, gave the reasons for its findings, and properly applied the statutory guidelines.” State v. Maxwell, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-1271, 2004-Ohio-5660, ¶ 27, citing State v. Altalla, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-1127, 2004-Ohio-4226, ¶ 7.
{8} In sentencing a felony offender, the trial court must consider the overriding purposes of sentencing, which are “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government
{9} As part of the trial court‘s consideration of all of the factors set forth in
{10} Harmless error is “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights” and “shall be disregarded.”
{11} For these reasons, we overrule Wolford‘s sole assignment of error.
IV. Disposition
{12} Having overruled Wolford‘s sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
SADLER, P.J., and BROWN, J., concur.