State v. Ramirez

Summary

The Ohio Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed David Sanchez Ramirez's aggregate 108-month prison sentence for five third-degree-felony sexual-battery convictions. The court held that the trial court made the findings required by Ohio Revised Code section 2929.14(C)(4) for consecutive sentences and that the record supported those findings under the applicable appellate-review standard.

Holdings

1. A felony sentence is not reviewed for abuse of discretion; it is reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which permits modification or vacation only when the sentence is contrary to law or the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the specified statutory findings.
2. Before imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court must make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4): consecutive terms are necessary to protect the public or punish the offender; they are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and the danger posed; and at least one statutory factor in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) applies.
3. The record did not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court's consecutive-sentence findings, and Ramirez did not demonstrate that the sentence was contrary to law.
4. The R.C. 2929.11 purposes and principles and R.C. 2929.12 seriousness and recidivism factors guide the sentence imposed for each individual felony offense; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) separately governs whether the individual terms may run consecutively.
5. A victim's request for leniency does not establish that the statutory consecutive-sentence findings are unsupported; a sentencing court should not give greater weight to a victim's expression of leniency than to a victim's request for a harsh sentence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate court should review the imposition of consecutive felony sentences for abuse of discretion.
2. Whether the trial court's consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) were contrary to law or clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.
3. Whether the victim's and other witnesses' requests for leniency, Ramirez's lack of criminal history, and his purportedly low risk of reoffending demonstrated that the consecutive-sentence findings were unsupported.

Disposition

affirmed