 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kravochuck6/23/2005
he worst forms of the offense, upon offenders who pose the greatest likelihood of committing future crimes, upon certain major drug offenders, and upon certain repeat violent offenders. R.C. 2929.14(C).
{ } In the instant case, appellant was sentenced on two felony charges: aggravated vehicular homicide, a felony of the second degree, and bribery, a third degree felony, as well as on various misdemeanor charges, as discussed above. She received eight years and three years, respectively, to be served consecutive to each other. The trial court took great pains to review, on the record, the facts of the case and then made the following findings:
{ } "Now, this Court believes this is the worst form of the offense and that the offender, because of her continued use of drugs and alcohol, would be likely to commit a future offense *. Therefore, this Court believes that the defendant poses a greater likelihood of committing future crimes * ith respect to Count 1, it is not disproportionate to any sentences that have been, to the best of my knowledge, imposed by this court. Secondly the Defendant's criminal history shows consecutive terms are needed to protect the public and punish the offender, and that the harm that she caused is so great that a single term does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct. Again, this Court believes this sentence is not disproportionate to any other sentence carried out by this Court."
{ } 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 at 7; State v. Stribling (Dec. 10, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 74715.
{ } We are convinced that the court in this case undertook the appropriate analysis for both the maximum sentence and the consecutive sentences. The trial judge reviewed the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the current offense and found that it was the worst form of the offense, that the appellant had a high likelihood of reoffending and that consecutive terms of incarceration were necessary to punish her. Finally, the court clearly stated its reasons for making these findings at the sentencing hearing. Therefore, appellant's second and third assignments of error are 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. 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. PRESIDING JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCURS; JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
|