 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Brown2/9/2004
Assignment of Error No. 3:
"THE COURT ERRED IN NOT IMPOSING THE MINIMUM SENTENCE."
Appellant argues that "the trial court must impose the minimum term for an offender who, like appellant, has not previously served a prison term unless it finds on the record either that a minimum sentence would demean the seriousness of the offender's conduct." Appellant maintains that the trial court failed to pair the statutory language with adequate findings. Therefore, he argues that the trial court's failure to impose the minimum sentence was error.
R.C. 2929.14(B) provides as follows:
"Except as provided in division (C), (D)(1), (D)(2), (D)(3), or (G) of this section, in section 2907.02 of the Revised Code, or in Chapter 2925 of the Revised Code, if the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a felony elects or is required to impose a prison term on the offender and if the offender previously has not served a prison term, the court shall impose the shortest prison term authorized for the offense pursuant to division (A) of this section, unless * the court finds on the record that the shortest prison term will demean the seriousness of the offender's conduct or will not adequately protect the public from future crime by the offender or others."
"R.C. 2929.14(B) does not require that the trial court give its reasons for its finding that the seriousness of the offender's conduct will be demeaned * * * before it can lawfully impose more than the minimum authorized sentence." State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 1999-Ohio-110, syllabus. However, the Ohio Supreme Court has recently held that "when imposing a non-minimum sentence on a first offender, a trial court is required to make its statutorily sanctioned findings at the sentencing hearing." State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio4165, paragraph two of the syllabus.
Rather than imposing the shortest prison term authorized, the trial court in the present case sentenced appellant to serve a term of three years in prison and pay a fine of $2,000 for the first count of aggravated vehicular assault. The trial court sentenced appellant to a consecutive one-year term and ordered him to pay a $1,000 fine for the second count of aggravated vehicular assault. Appellant was sentenced to a concurrent six-month term and a $500 fine for driving under the influence of alcohol, and he was fined $100 for driving upon the left side of the roadway.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated, "the court finds that the victims in this case did suffer serious physical harm." The court also observed that "there was a prior adjudication of driving under the influence and it was a failure to acknowledge a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse that related to this offense. And those are the factors which lend itself to recidivism likely."
The trial court noted that it is "aware that it's exceeding the minimum for the first time prison term sentence. The defendant has never been in prison before. Now the Court does feel that the shortest prison term would demean the seriousness of the defendant's conduct and for the reasons which I said before on the record. But also understood is sentencing the defendant to consecutive sentences, the Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to punish the defendant and they are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the defendant's conduct and the danger that the defendant poses to the public." Furthermore, the court also found "that the harm caused by the defendant was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any one of the offenses committed as part of a single course of conduct adequately reflects the seri
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|