[Cite as State v. Salman, 2018-Ohio-3516.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-17-1223 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201602649 v. Eshtar Salman DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: August 31, 2018 ***** Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant. ***** PIETRYKOWSKI, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Eshtar Salman, appeals from the August 7, 2017 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him following acceptance of his no contest plea and his conviction of involuntary manslaughter, a violation of R.C. 2903.04(B) and (C), a felony of the third degree. Appellant was sentenced to 24 months in prison. {¶ 2} He asserts the following assignments of error on appeal: I. The trial court did not comply with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in sentencing appellants to twenty four [sic] months in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. II. The trial court committed error to the prejudice of Appellant by imposing the costs of prosecution without consideration of Appellant’s present or future ability to pay. {¶ 3} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court did not comply with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when it sentenced him to 24 months of imprisonment. {¶ 4} The trial court may impose any sentence, so long as it is within the sentencing range for the degree of felony involved. R.C. 2929.12(A); R.C. 2929.13(A); R.C. 2929.14(A); State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶ 17, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Tammerine, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1081, 2014-Ohio-425, ¶ 11, 15 (R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) defines the appellate standard of review of sentencing judgments). On appeal, our standard of review is limited by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I) are supported by the record and whether the sentence is contrary to law. State 2. v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22-23. In this case, appellant challenges that the sentence was contrary to law because the trial court did not comply with R.C. 2929.12(C)(4) (by failing to consider the mitigating factors in this case) or R.C. 2929.12(E) (by failing to consider the “factors indicating that the offender is not likely to commit future crimes”). {¶ 5} The trial court uses its discretion to impose the appropriate sentence which achieves the purposes of protecting the public and punishing the defendant, without unnecessarily burdening state or local government resources. R.C. 2929.11(A); R.C. 2929.12(A); R.C. 2929.13(A). To achieve the purposes of felony sentencing, the court may consider the need for incapacitating the defendant, methods of deterrence, rehabilitation, restitution, the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct, and mitigating factors. R.C. 2929.11(A); R.C. 2929.12. However, there is no requirement that the court make specific findings or use specific language to reflect consideration of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals