 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Finkes3/28/2002
fact been determined to be aggravated murder. Cover-up, as far as this Court is concerned, is the worst form of obstruction that can exist.
Maximum and consecutive sentences are appropriate in these circumstances *.
* ased upon everything that happened in the trial * I saw absolutely no remorse. *
And I find that you are the worst form of offender because of your conduct. You pose the greatest likelihood of committing future crimes. [2/15/01 Tr. 17-18.]
In its sentencing entry, the trial court expressly found that consecutive sentences: were necessary both to protect the public from future crime and to punish defendant; were not disproportionate to the seriousness of defendant's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public; and under R.C. 2929.14(E)(4)(b) and (c), respectively, that the harm caused by the multiple offenses was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as a single course of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of defendant's conduct and that defendant's criminal conduct in this case demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crimes by defendant.
In addition, the court found:
The Court, in giving maximum and partially consecutive sentences has determined that the attempted cover-up, consisting of the two counts of Tampering with Evidence, was a plan instituted in concert with the Defendant intended to prevent detection of an aggravated murder. The Court also finds that the Defendant showed absolutely no remorse for killing her minor victim and as such, is the worst form of offender who poses the greatest likelihood, if given the opportunity, to commit a future offense. [2/15/01 Judgment Entry.]
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in imposing maximum consecutive sentences on the tampering with evidence charges. The court made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C) and (E) and gave its reasons for selecting the sentence. We do not agree with defendant's contention that maximum sentences were not warranted because her conduct in this case was no more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense of tampering with evidence. As noted by the trial court, defendant tampered with evidence to prevent detection of the aggravated murder of a minor victim. In addition, we do not agree with defendant's contention that consecutive sentences were unwarranted because the mandatory prison term of twenty years to life for aggravated murder will "always adequately reflect the seriousness of the offender's conduct." Fear of additional punishment for tampering with evidence after committing a crime provides a strong deterrent for engaging in such conduct.
In addition to imposing a prison term upon defendant, the court imposed court costs of $1,423.88, a fine of $500,000 and restitution of $765,000 in favor of Coyan's estate. Defendant challenges both the fine and the order of restitution.
We first address defendant's contentions regarding the fine. R.C. 2929.18(A) provides that a trial court imposing a sentence upon a felony offender "may sentence the offender to any financial sanction or combination of financial sanctions authorized under this section, or, in the circumstances specified in section 2929.25 of the Revised Code, may impose upon the offender a fine in accordance with that section." In addition to a $25,000 fine proscribed by R.C. 2929.02, a trial court may impose a fine of not more than $1 million dollars if the offense for which the offender is being sentenced is aggravated murder. R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(c). Before it imposes a fine, however,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|