 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Preston6/8/2005
JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
JUDGES: Hon. Mary DeGenaro Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich Hon. Cheryl L. Waite
{ } This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court, the parties' briefs, and their oral arguments before this court. Defendant-Appellant, Charles Preston, appeals the Carroll County Court of Common Pleas decision which found him guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide and sentencing him to consecutive prison terms. Preston challenges the consecutive nature of his sentence, arguing the trial court did not comply with Ohio's felony sentencing statutes. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated the reasons and made the findings required by felony sentencing statutes and recent Supreme Court decision. Thus, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
{ } Preston was indicted on multiple counts of driving under the influence , driving under suspension, aggravated vehicular assault, and aggravated vehicular homicide. Preston eventually pled guilty to one count of aggravated vehicular homicide and aggravated vehicular assault, felonies of first and second degrees respectively. The prosecutor jointly recommended a consecutive sentence of six years on the homicide charge and four years on the assault charge. The trial court rejected this recommendation and imposed a consecutive sentence of nine years and six years.
{ } Preston's sole assignment of error argues:
{ } "Whether the trial court erred by failing to state its reasons to support its findings for consecutive sentences as required by Revised Code 2929.14(E)(4) when imposing consecutive sentences of six years on count three with nine years on count one."
{ } Preston argues the trial court failed to align the reasons it gave for ordering consecutive sentences to the findings it made supporting that decision. In addition, he contends that the record does not support the trial court's findings. We disagree.
{ } Regarding the standard of review applied to a felony sentence, we may only vacate, increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence if we clearly and convincingly find either that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
{ } Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), the trial court can order the sentences to run consecutively if the court finds that: (1) the consecutive sentence is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender, (2) the sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and (3) at least one of the following apply:
{ } "(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense.
{ } "(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender's conduct.
{ } "(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender."
{ } The trial court is also obliged to state the reasons for selecting the sentence imposed on the record. R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). As the Ohio Supreme Court r
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|