 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davis9/12/2003
trial court. State v. Green, 90 Ohio St.3d 352, 371, 2000-Ohio-182. Furthermore, there was no procedural error, since pre-sentence investigations are not required for all sentencing proceedings. Specifically, courts do not have to order pre-sentence investigations in felony cases unless probation is being considered. State v. Garrison (1997), 123 Ohio App.3d 11, 16.
. As an additional matter, the defense had a chance to offer any evidence it wished. If Davis needed more time, he could have asked the court to postpone the hearing. However, he did not attempt to do so, and does not suggest on appeal what other evidence he would have offered. Under the circumstances, we find no procedural error.
. We do disagree with the State about our duty and power to review maximum sentences. The State's argument is based on the fact that maximum sentences are not specifically mentioned in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). This part of the statute provides that:
. " he court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.
. "The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
. "(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (E)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (H) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
. "(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law."
. The code sections specifically mentioned in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) relate to: (1) findings used to decide if prison terms or community control are warranted for certain classes of offenders; (2) findings required for imposing consecutive sentences; and (3) findings required in connection with judicial release of certain offenders. Since the findings required for maximum sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C) and R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(d) and (e) are not included in this group, the State argues that appellate courts do not have the power to decide if a trial court's findings for maximum sentences are supported by the record.
. We disagree with the State on this point, as it would render the statutory framework pointless. In State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 1999-Ohio-110, the Ohio Supreme Court held that courts must give findings and reasons for the findings when sentencing offenders to maximum terms. Id. at 329. "Findings are the specific criteria enumerated in R.C. 2929.14(C), which are necessary to justify maximum sentences; reasons are the trial court's bases for its findings which evince the trial court's adherence to the General Assembly's policies of establishing consistency in sentencing and curtailing maximum sentences." State v. Anderson, 146 Ohio App.3d 427, 437-38, 2001-Ohio-4297. If the reasons for a finding are not subject to appellate review, there is no point in requiring trial courts to give reasons.
. Furthermore, courts do, in fact, examine the record to see maximum sentences are supported. See, e.g., State v. Johnson, Champaign App. No. 2002 CA 3, 2003-Ohio-908, (finding that facts in record supported trial court's finding that defendant posed greatest likelihood of committing future crimes and should, therefore, receive maximum se
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|