State v. Huff10/20/2005
hearings, and the judge may consider any reliable evidence in the record. Evid.R. 101(C); State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 425, 1998 Ohio 291, 700 N.E.2d 570. Second, "it is well-established that a sentencing court may weigh such factors as arrests for other crimes. As noted by the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals, the function of the sentencing court is to acquire a thorough grasp of the character and history of the defendant before it. The court's consideration ought to encompass negative as well as favorable data. Few things can be so relevant as other criminal activity of the defendant: 'To argue that the presumption of innocence is affronted by considering unproved criminal activity is as implausible as taking the double jeopardy clause to bar reference to past convictions."
Id. at , quoting United States v. Doyle (C.A. 2, 1965), 348 F.2d 715, 721, certiorari denied, (1965) 382 U.S. 843, 15 L.Ed.2d 84, 86 S.Ct. 89; United States v. Metz (C.A. 3, 1972), 470 F.2d 1140, certiorari denied, (1973), 411 U.S. 919, 36 L.Ed.2d 311, 93 S.Ct. 1558; State v. Burton (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 21, 23; City of Maple Heights v. Dickard (1986), 31 Ohio App.3d 68, 71. See, also, Williams v. New York (1949), 337 U.S. 241, 247, 93 L.Ed. 1337, 69 S.Ct. 1079 ("Highly relevant -- if not essential -- to his selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant's life and characteristics.") (Citations omitted.)
{ } Other appellate courts have held likewise. See, e.g., State v. Jordan, Athens case No. 01CA4, 2002-Ohio-417 (trial court did not err in considering defendant's subsequent criminal conduct for purposes of sentencing because a sentencing court is not "limited to considering only the offense committed and its results"), citing State v. Stanley (Nov. 18, 1998), Meigs App. No. 97CA21 (defendant's admission to driving under the influence while she was on bond for tampering with evidence and receiving stolen property was relevant to determining her likelihood of recidivism in sentencingfor the later two offenses); State v. Newton (Dec. 21, 2001), Montgomery App. No. 18934 (trial court did not err in considering defendant's pending assault charge in another jurisdiction because R.C. 2929.12(D) mandates a sentencing court to consider any other relevant factors).
{ } Based on the foregoing, the record reflects the trial court fully complied with the requirements of R.C. 2929.14(B). We further conclude that the trial court's consideration of appellant's subsequent criminal conduct was not improper. As such, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its imposition of more than the minimum sentence.
{ } Accordingly, appellant's first and second assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN, P.J., and KLATT, J., concur.
|