 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davis9/12/2003
form of an offense, it should directly connect the finding with the supporting reasons. See State v. Peck, Champaign App. No. 2002-CA-24, 2003-Ohio-3836, s 14-19. In the present case, of the reasons given by the court, only two fit within R.C. 2929.12(B) as indicating the crime was more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense. These are: (1) that " he victim of the offense suffered serious physical, psychological, or economic harm as a result of the offense;" and (2) that " he offender's relationship with the victim facilitated the offense."
. The first factor cannot apply, since every involuntary manslaughter victim suffers serious-indeed, the ultimate-physical harm. This leaves only the factor that the offense was facilitated by the offender's relationship with the victim. In some circumstances, one factor alone may cause a particular crime to be the worst form of the offense-although it does not appear to be sufficient here. Specifically, we are not convinced that a maximum sentence would be warranted simply because the parties' relationship involved drugs and alcohol.
. In this regard, we note that other courts have struggled with how to apply the factor of whether a crime is the worst form of an offense. See Kershaw, 132 Ohio App.3d 243, 247 (finding that the concept of the "worst" form of an offense is nebulous), and State v. DeAmiches (March 1, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 77609, 2001 WL 210020, *7-9 (noting that " f courts do not apply some standard to the abstract `worst form' analysis, the statute will provide no guidance and thus serve no purpose"). We agree that the term is somewhat nebulous. However, since maximum sentences are supported in this case by another factor, we need not consider further whether Davis committed the worst form of the offenses.
. The final issue is whether consecutive sentences are warranted by the record. R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) permits consecutive sentences:
. " 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:
. "(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, or 2929.18 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."
. The trial court's stated reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence for the conviction for tampering with evidence are that the crimes were committed with a separate animus, and that the sentence would deter other similarly situated criminals faced with an opportunity to conceal or hide evidence. In addition, the court repeated the approximate language contained in R.C. 2929.14(E)(4)(b) and (c). However, the court did not connect specific reasons to these statutory findings.
. When trial courts impose consecutive sentences, they cannot simply recite the statutory language o
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.
|
|