State v. North ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. North, 2019-Ohio-3224.]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
    BUTLER COUNTY
    STATE OF OHIO,                                   :
    Appellee,                                 :      CASE NO. CA2018-10-201
    :             OPINION
    - vs -                                                      8/12/2019
    :
    JOSEPH B. NORTH, JR.,                            :
    Appellant.                                :
    CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    Case No. CR2017-12-2072
    Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, Government
    Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
    Scott N. Blauvelt, 315 South Monument Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant
    RINGLAND, P.J.
    {¶ 1} Appellant, Joseph North, appeals the sentence imposed by the Butler County
    Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
    {¶ 2} On August 16, 2018, North pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property
    in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), a fourth-degree felony, one count of tampering with evidence
    in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a third-degree felony, and one count of receiving stolen
    Butler CA2018-10-201
    property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), a fifth-degree felony.
    {¶ 3} The trial court sentenced North to an 18-month prison term for the fourth-
    degree stolen property offense and a 24-month prison term for the third-degree tampering
    offense. The trial court ordered those terms to be served consecutively. The remaining
    count was ordered concurrent and therefore the trial court sentenced North to an aggregate
    prison term of 42 months. North now appeals, raising a single assignment of error for review:
    {¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING A PRISON TERM WHERE THE
    FINDING THAT THE VICTIMS SUFFERED PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM AS A RESULT OF
    APPELLANT'S OFFENSES WAS UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.
    {¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, North alleges the trial court erred in its
    sentencing decision by finding the victims suffered psychological harm. North's argument is
    without merit.
    {¶ 6} This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to the standard of review set forth
    in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and
    convincingly contrary to law. State v. Julious, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-224, 2016-
    Ohio-4822, ¶ 8. Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence
    only if, by clear and convincing evidence, '"the record does not support the trial court's
    findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.'" State v.
    Harp, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-12-096, 2016-Ohio-4921, ¶ 7, quoting State v.
    Marcum, 
    146 Ohio St. 3d 516
    , 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1.
    {¶ 7} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court
    considers the purposes and principles of sentencing as set forth in R.C. 2929.11, as well as
    the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, and sentences a defendant
    within the permissible statutory range. State v. Brandenburg, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2014-
    10-201 and CA2014-10-202, 2016-Ohio-4918, ¶ 9. The factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 are
    -2-
    Butler CA2018-10-201
    nonexclusive, and R.C. 2929.12 explicitly permits a trial court to consider any relevant factors
    in imposing a sentence. State v. Stamper, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-08-166, 2013-Ohio-
    5669, ¶ 11. According to R.C. 2929.12(B)(2), conduct may be considered more serious
    when "[t]he victim of the offense suffered serious physical, psychological, or economic harm
    as a result of the offense." State v. Rich, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-01-002, 2014-Ohio-
    4623, ¶ 18.
    {¶ 8} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a trial court must engage in a three-step
    analysis and make certain findings before imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Dillon,
    12th Dist. Madison No. CA2012-06-012, 2013-Ohio-335, ¶ 9. First, the trial court must find
    that the consecutive sentence is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to
    punish the offender. 
    Id. Second, the
    trial court must find that consecutive sentences are not
    disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender
    poses to the public. 
    Id. Third, the
    trial court must find that one of the following applies:
    (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.
    R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c).
    {¶ 9} "A trial court satisfies the statutory requirement of making the required findings
    when the record reflects that the court engaged in the required analysis and selected the
    -3-
    Butler CA2018-10-201
    appropriate statutory criteria." State v. Setty, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2013-06-049 and
    CA2013-06-050, 2014-Ohio-2340, ¶ 113. In imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court
    is not required to provide a word-for-word recitation of the language of the statute or
    articulate reasons supporting its findings. 
    Id. Nevertheless, the
    record must reflect that the
    trial court engaged in the required sentencing analysis and made the requisite findings. 
    Id. The court's
    findings must thereafter be incorporated into its sentencing entry. State v. Ahlers,
    12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-100, 2016-Ohio-2890, ¶ 10.
    {¶ 10} On appeal, North takes issue with the trial court's use of the term "psychological
    harm." In so doing, North argues that the record "clearly and convincingly fails to support
    [the finding] that he caused 'psychological harm' or 'serious psychological harm'" and
    therefore, consideration of that finding amounted to reversible error with respect to the
    imposition of both the prison term and the consecutive findings.
    {¶ 11} We find the trial court did not err in its sentencing decision, as North's sentence
    was not contrary to law and was supported by the record. In the present case, the trial court
    stated that it had considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, as well as the
    seriousness and recidivism factors contained in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. The trial
    court noted that North's criminal behavior related to his problems with substance abuse and
    addiction, but "recognize[d] that the actions taken by Mr. North had a great impact on the
    victims in this matter." The trial court further noted that a written victim impact statement
    indicated that one of the victims had suffered "psychological harm as a result of [North's]
    actions." In addition, the trial court also considered North's prior convictions for receiving
    stolen property and forgery and that he had already been given the benefit of the drug court
    program.
    {¶ 12} Though the trial court stated that the victims suffered psychological harm as a
    result of North's actions, that acknowledgment was merely surplusage without legal
    -4-
    Butler CA2018-10-201
    significance. See, e.g., State v. Proctor, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2006-03-042 and CA2006-
    03-043, 2007-Ohio-909, ¶ 8. From review of the record, it is evident the trial court considered
    a number of factors in imposing its sentencing decision. As stated by the trial court:
    The Court has considered the purposes and principles of
    sentencing in Revised Code § 2929.11 and the serious and
    recidivism factors in Revised Code § 2929.12, as well as the
    record, the charges, the statements made at this hearing, the
    victim impact statement that it previously referenced, and the
    presentence investigation report.
    And the Court does not dispute any of what [North's trial counsel]
    is saying, in terms of how addicts behave and why things occur.
    And the Court accepts that as an explanation, but the Court also,
    certainly, has to recognize that the actions taken by Mr. North
    had a great impact on the victims in this matter.
    And the Court received, as it indicated, one particular victim
    impact statement, and the Court finds that that victim did suffer
    psychological harm as a result of Mr. North's actions. And while
    he's not convicted of breaking into the homes, he's charged and
    [pled] guilty with what happened with the items that were taken
    from those homes.
    And the Court, again, finds that psychological harm was suffered
    by the victims in this matter. The Court also does recognize that
    Mr. North has a prior conviction for receiving stolen property and
    forgery, and the Court notes that he did have the benefit of the
    drug court program with regard to that case. And unfortunately,
    we are here today for a similar conviction.
    {¶ 13} The record likewise reflects that the trial court made the findings required by
    R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when it ordered North's sentences be served consecutively. The trial
    court found that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public and punish the
    defendant. The trial court found that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to
    North's conduct and to the danger he poses to the public. The trial court also found that 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
    -5-
    Butler CA2018-10-201
    courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender's conduct. Finally, the
    court found North's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are
    necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
    {¶ 14} The trial court later memorialized these findings within its sentencing entry.
    From the trial court's statements at the sentencing hearing and the language used in the
    sentencing entry, it is clear that the trial court complied with the dictates of R.C.
    2929.14(C)(4). See State v. Bonnell, 
    140 Ohio St. 3d 209
    , 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 37; State v.
    Sess, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-117, 2016-Ohio-5560, ¶ 35-38.
    {¶ 15} As a result, we find the trial court did not err in its sentencing decision. North's
    sole assignment of error is overruled.
    {¶ 16} Judgment affirmed.
    S. POWELL and PIPER, JJ., concur.
    -6-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA2018-10-201

Judges: Ringland

Filed Date: 8/12/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/12/2019