Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Jeffrey A. York

September 30, 2011

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JEFFREY A. YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10 CR 000513.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cynthia Westcott Rice, J.

Cite as State v. York,

OPINION

Judgment:Affirmed.

{¶1} Jeffrey A. York, appellant herein, appeals the judgment entered by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to an aggregate term of 15 years imprisonment. For the reasons below, we affirm.

{¶2} On August 31, 2010, appellant was indicted on the following counts: count 1, rape, a felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); count 2, gross sexual imposition, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); count 3, rape, a felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); count 4, gross sexual imposition, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); count 5, gross sexual imposition, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); count 6, endangering children, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(2); count 7, endangering children, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(3); count 8, endangering children, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1); count 9, gross sexual imposition, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1); count 10, gross sexual imposition, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1); count 11, endangering children, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1); count 12, endangering children, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1); count 13, endangering children, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1); count 14, aggravated menacing, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2903.21; count 15, domestic violence, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A); count 16, domestic violence, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A); count 17, domestic violence, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A); count 18, domestic violence, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A); and, finally, count 19, domestic violence, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). Appellant waived his right to be present at his arraignment and pleas of "not guilty" were entered on his behalf.

{¶3} On October 21, 2010, appellant withdrew his pleas of "not guilty" and entered pleas of "guilty" on the following counts: count 2, gross sexual imposition, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); count 4, gross sexual imposition, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); and count 7, endangering children, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(3). The remaining counts in the indictment were dismissed at the state's request.

{¶4} At the plea hearing, factual bases for the crimes were set forth. With respect to the child endangering, appellant admitted he built a small room in his home, approximately four feet by ten feet, and locked his stepdaughter ("the victim") in the room for lengthy periods of time. The victim had no access to a bathroom or any means of egress in the event of a fire or other immediate danger that might necessitate an exit. Appellant also admitted to an incident in which he struck the victim in the face with a toy riding horse, which caused her pain and injury. Regarding the gross sexual imposition ("GSI") charges, appellant admitted he had sexual conduct with the victim when she was either six or seven years old; namely, appellant admitted he "put her on top of him and had his penis touching her vagina, and him on top of her with his penis touching her vagina."

{¶5} The trial court subsequently accepted appellant's plea. A presentence investigation report was ordered; appellant also had a psychological evaluation. After considering victim impact statements, statements offered in mitigation from appellant and various other supporting materials, as well as arguments from defense and the prosecution, appellant was sentenced to serve a prison term of five years on each count, to run consecutively, for an aggregate term of 15 years imprisonment. Appellant was also classified as a Tier II sex offender. He now appeals assigning the following error:

{¶6} "The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant-appellant to the maximum, consecutive term of imprisonment."

{¶7} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, the Supreme Court of Ohio established a two-step analysis for an appellate court reviewing a felony sentence. In the first step, we must consider whether the trial court "adhered to all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence." Id. at 25. "As a purely legal question, this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08(G)." Id. Next, we consider, with reference to the general principles of felony sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in Sections 2929.11 and 2929.12, whether the trial court abused its discretion in selecting the defendant's sentence. See id. at 27.

{¶8} With respect to the first prong of Kalish, the Supreme Court did not specifically offer guidance as to the "laws and rules" an appellate court must consider to ensure the sentence clearly and convincingly conforms with Ohio law. State v. Burrell, 11th Dist. No. 2009-P-0033, 2010-Ohio-6059, at ¶17. Consequently, if the sentence falls within the statutory range for the felony of which a defendant is convicted, it will be upheld as clearly and convincingly consistent with the law. Id., citing Kalish, supra, at ¶15; see, also, State v. Gooden, 9th Dist. No. 24896, 2010-Ohio-1961, at ¶48. If the sentence is within the purview of the applicable "laws and rules," we then consider whether the trial court acted within its discretion in fashioning the sentence at issue.

{¶9} Under his sole assignment of error, appellant does not assert his sentence was contrary to law. Rather, appellant contends the trial court failed to give proper consideration to all relevant statutory factors under R.C. 2929.12. In particular, appellant argues the trial court failed to give careful and substantial deliberation to his explanations for the child endangerment charges. According to appellant, his explanations add a context to the circumstances of his crimes which render his actions less serious than conduct normally constituting the offense as well as demonstrate he is not likely to commit future crimes under various factors set forth under R.C. 2929.12(C) and (E). To wit, appellant asserts the "time out room" was designed as a disciplinary tool to use as an alternative to spanking the victim. And, in any event, he never intended to cause the victim serious physical or psychological harm in the course of his disciplinary practices.

{ΒΆ10} With respect to the GSI charges, appellant points out that, after the episodes, he went to the victim, apologized, and told her it would not happen again. Appellant underscores he never inappropriately touched the girl again. Appellant further contends he is remorseful for his conduct and any embarrassment or pain it caused the victim. In appellant's view, these factors, given proper consideration, render the crimes less serious. Further, given his scant criminal record and modest, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.