 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Brooks11/10/2005
reatest likelihood of committing future crime. A maximum sentence is necessary to protect the public from future crime.
{ } "The reasons for such findings are: Defendant is a 42-year-old, large, strong man who is paranoid schizophrenic with no family support system and no local agency which can provide secure housing. He has been hospitalized at least eighteen times in the last ten years because of his mental illness. When hospitalized he has been violent and has injured attendants. His hospitalizations have often been prompted by violent behavior. He has criminal convictions for DUI and domestic violence in addition to the present offenses. He is frequently non-compliant with medication. Defendant is unemployable and is a substance abuser. The past ten years' experience show that he is both frightening and a physical danger to people even when hospitalized. In the absence of a secure community facility that can maintain close and long-term supervision, long-term imprisonment is the only way to protect the public, medical attendants, and other mentally ill people who are hospitalized. Without imprisonment, he will be frequently arrested for violent behavior."
{ } It should be noted that the Senate Bill 2 sentencing guidelines do not "require talismanic words from the sentencing court" when a court imposes a sentence, but it must be clear from the record that the trial court engaged in the appropriate analysis. State v. Murrin, Cuyahoga App. No. 83714, 2004-Ohio-3962, citing State v. Fincher (Oct. 14, 1997), Franklin App. No. 97APA03-352, appeal dismissed (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 1443, 690 N.E.2d 15; see, also, State v. Johnson (Sept. 7, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76865; State v. Stribling (Dec. 10, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 74715.
{ } We are convinced that the trial court in this case did engage in the appropriate analysis when imposing its sentence. It reviewed the appellant's previous history of mental illness, violence, and criminal conduct. It also considered the nature of the current offenses for which appellant was being sentenced and appropriately found that the maximum terms of incarceration were necessary to adequately protect the public. Finally, the record clearly demonstrates that at both the sentencing hearing and in its judgment entry, the trial court sufficiently stated its reasons for making its findings. Therefore, appellant's second assignment of error is also overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR. JUDGE
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, A.J., AND ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J., CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|