 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Brooks11/10/2005
{ } Benjamin Brooks appeals his sentence imposed by the common pleas court. Upon review of the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the sentence for the reasons set forth below.
{ } On July 26, 2004, appellant appeared in the common pleas court pursuant to charges in two separate cases, CR-443775 and CR-445639. At that time, he pleaded guilty in Case No. CR-443775 to attempted assault on a police officer, a felony of the fifth degree. In that case, he had bitten a police officer who was responding to a call to do a welfare check at his home. In Case No. CR-445639, he pleaded no contest and was subsequently found guilty of felonious assault, a felony of the second degree. That case involved an assault on an employee of a mental health facility.
{ } The trial court ordered a presentence investigation, and on September 17, 2004, the first of two sentencing hearings was held. At the initial hearing, Roosevelt Williams, the victim of the felonious assault (CR-445639), explained the incident to the court. According to the record, Williams was an employee at Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare ("NBH"), where appellant was a resident at the time. On the day of the incident, appellant became angry, uncontrollable and was chasing and threatening female staff members at the facility. Williams attempted to subdue him, but instead appellant grabbed Williams, choked him, and beat him unconscious. As a result, Williams sustained serious injuries, including a fractured orbita, and missed several weeks of work.
{ } By the conclusion of this first sentencing hearing, the trial court had heard statements from Williams and police officer Jeff Gosnell and had reviewed the following: the presentence investigation report, reports from the court psychiatric clinic, a report provided by the defense by Dr. Fabian, and the discharge summary from NBH. Consequently, the trial court ordered continuance of the sentencing to obtain further information on appellant's mental health history and sentencing options.
{ } The sentencing hearing resumed on November 10, 2004. After stating its findings for the record, the trial court sentenced appellant to the maximum eight years incarceration on the felonious assault conviction and the maximum one year incarceration on the attempted assault on a police officer conviction. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
{ } Appellant now appeals this sentence asserting the following two assignments of error:
{ } "I. APPELLANT'S SENTENCE VIOLATES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.
{ } "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPOSED MORE THAN THE MINIMUM TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT ON APPELLANT, A FIRST OFFENDER, WITHOUT MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS REQUIRED BY R.C. 2929.14(B)."
Right to Jury Claim under Blakely
{ } Appellant's argument that the maximum sentences imposed by the trial court violate the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403, has been addressed in this court's en banc decision in State v. Lett, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 84707 and 84729, 2005-Ohio-2665. In Lett, we held that R.C. 2929.14(C) and (E), which govern the imposition of maximum and consecutive sentences, do not implicate the Sixth Amendment as construed in Blakely. Accordingly, in conformity with that opinion, we reject appellant's contentions and overrule his first assigned error.
Necessary Findings Required to Impose More Than Minimum
{ } Appellant next argues that the trial court failed to make the appropriate findings to sentence him to more than the minimum terms of incarceration. After a thorough r
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|