 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Brown2/9/2004
ousness of the defendant's conduct."
It is clear from the record that the court considered how R.C. 2929.14(B) applied to the facts of the case. We find that the common pleas court complied with R.C. 2929.14(B) and relevant case law when it made the finding and gave the reasons supporting the finding orally on the record at the sentencing hearing.
Appellant also argues that "the trial court erred in using 'revenge' as an aspect of sentencing appellant." Appellant maintains that a sentence imposed, "at least in part, on a theory of revenge, is improper."
At the sentencing hearing the trial court stated, "sentencing has a number of aspects to it. It has the punishment aspect and rehabilitation as an aspect. It has some of revenge as an aspect. It has an aspect of what damage the defendant caused by his act that night, going out and getting drunk and going on the road."
There is more than one sense of the word "revenge." Webster's Third New World International Dictionary defines "revenge" as 1: to inflict harm or injury in return for (as an injury or insult) 2: to avenge or seek vengeance for a wrong done 3: to punish. R.C. 2929.11(A) states that one of the "overriding purposes of felony sentencing" is to "punish the offender."
We find the trial court did not commit prejudicial error by stating revenge is an aspect of sentencing since one of the definitions of the word revenge is "to punish" and R.C. 2929.11(A) states that one of the overriding purposes of felony sentencing is to "punish the offender." Accordingly, appellant's third assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
VALEN, P.J., and POWELL, J., concur.
|