 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pearce6/30/2005
. In fact, a trial judge may satisfy his or her duty under R.C. 2929.12 with nothing more than a rote recitation that the applicable factors were considered. Id.
{ } In order to sentence an offender to the maximum term of incarceration, a trial court must make certain findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C). Specifically, "the record must reflect that the trial court imposed the maximum sentence based on the offender satisfying one of the listed criteria in R.C. 2929.14(C)." State v. Edmonson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 329. Those criteria are: (1) the offender committed the worst form of the offense; (2) the offender poses the greatest likelihood of committing future crimes; (3) the offender is a major drug offender; and (4) the offender is a repeat violent offender. R.C. 2929.14(C).
{ } In addition, pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(d), if the sentencing court imposes a maximum prison term for a single offense pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C), it must set forth its reasons for doing so. See State v. Moore (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 593, 597, citing Edmonson, supra at 328. Those reasons must be stated at the sentencing hearing. See State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Newman, 100 Ohio St.3d 24, 2003-Ohio-4754.
{ } Upon review of the transcript from the sentencing hearing below, we conclude that the trial court made the required findings for imposing the maximum sentence of 12 months for a fifth degree felony offense. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in considering the offenses with which he was charged but not convicted to support imposing the maximum sentence. Appellant, however, has an extensive criminal record which supported the trial court's conclusion that he posed the greatest likelihood of committing future crimes. That alone would support the trial court's imposing the maximum sentence. R.C. 2929.14(C).
{ } Finally, appellant asserts that the court violated his constitutional rights by enhancing his sentence to the maximum by using information learned about the crimes for which he was indicted but not convicted to support the sentence. Appellant cites the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Blakely v. Washington (2004), ____ U.S.____, 159 L.Ed.2d 403, 124 S.Ct. 2531, in support. This court, however, has held that the Blakely protections of a defendant's right to trial by jury are not implicated under Ohio's sentencing scheme and that Blakely applies only when the maximum sentence in the available range for on offense has been exceeded which, under Ohio law, simply does not occur. See State v. Curlis, 6th Dist. No. WD-04-032, 2005-Ohio-1217.
{ } Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in imposing the maximum possible sentence on appellant for a fifth degree felony and appellant's assignments of error are not well-taken.
{ } On consideration whereof, the court finds that appellant was not prejudiced or prevented from having a fair trial and the judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal for which sum judgment is rendered against appellant on behalf of Ottawa County and for which execution is awarded. See App.R. 24.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. JUDGE
Arlene Singer, P.J., William J. Skow, J. JUDGE CONCUR.
|