 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ludwick2/13/2004
l injury to the victim.
. "I've already pointed out you have a continuous criminal history, as well as a prior sexual offense from when you were only 17 years old and the fact you have served a prior prison term.
. "I think the threats of harm that were made directly to the victim in this case, as well as the extensive conduct and the brutality of the offense in this case, again, indicate a high likelihood that you will reoffend at your first opportunity.
. "And in order to protect the public as well as not to demean the seriousness of the crime, I do find that the shortest term would not be sufficient. That it would demean the seriousness of the crime and I'm never quite sure, in my own mind, when you're talking about a rape, especially a rape of this nature, how much worse you can get before it's the worst form of the offense.
. "In my opinion, I think this is the worst form of the offense and I think that your criminal history, as well as your conduct in this case, has demonstrated the greatest likelihood that you will commit future crimes and that it warrants imposition of the * maximum penalty for the offense."
. The trial court adequately complied with the sentencing statutes when it provided its findings in support of its imposition of the maximum sentences.
. Ludwick's sixth assignment of error is without merit.
. Ludwick's seventh assignment of error is:
. "The trial court erred to the prejudice of the appellant in imposing consecutive sentences."
. The trial court is required to make certain findings before issuing consecutive sentences. Some of those required findings are set forth in R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), which states:
. "If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following:
. "(a) The offender committed 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) The harm caused by the multiple offenses was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of a single course 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."
. In addition to the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), the trial court is required to state its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c), which states:
. "(B)(2) The court shall impose a sentence and shall make a finding that gives its reasons for selecting the sentence imposed in any of the following circumstances:
. " *
. "(c) If it imposes consecutive sentences under section 2929.14 of the Revised Code, its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences."
. In order to comply with these sentencing provisions, the record must contain specific operative facts that indicate the trial court considered the statutory factors in its sentencing decision. Mor
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|