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 v. Holbrook

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District

September 3, 2013

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JAMIE B. HOLBROOK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 2012-CR-65

Gerald F. Siesel for Appellant

Edwin A. Pierce for Appellee

OPINION

PRESTON, P.J.

(¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jamie B. Holbrook, appeals the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas' judgment entry of sentence. We affirm.

(¶2} On March 16, 2012, the Auglaize County Grand Jury indicted Holbrook on nine counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A)(B)(3), third-degree felonies, stemming from separate incidents with two female victims over the course of several months. (Doc. No. 1).

(¶3} On May 1, 2012, Holbrook filed a written plea of not guilty. (Doc. No. 20).

(¶4} On November 1, 2012, Holbrook pled guilty to Counts One, Eight, and Nine of the indictment. (Nov. 1, 2012 Tr. at 15-16); (Doc. No. 38). Pursuant to the parties' written plea agreement, the State dismissed the remaining counts. (Id.); (Id.). The State alleged that Count One charged Holbrook of engaging in sexual conduct—in particular fellatio-with a female victim (15 years old), and Counts Eight and Nine charged Holbrook of engaging in sexual conduct-specifically, vaginal intercourse-with a female victim (13 years old). (Nov. 1, 2012 Tr. at 16-17). The defense requested a pre-sentence investigation ("PSI") report, which the State did not oppose pursuant to the plea agreement, and which the trial court ordered. ( Id. at 18-21); (Doc. Nos. 38, 42).

(¶5} On January 16, 2013, the trial court held a combined sexual offender classification/sentencing hearing. The trial court classified Holbrook as a Tier II Sexual Predator. (Jan. 16, 2013 Tr. at 5). Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Holbrook to 60 months imprisonment on Count One, 60 months imprisonment on Count Eight, and 54 months imprisonment on Count Nine. (Id. at 17). The trial court further ordered that Holbrook serve the terms consecutive to each other for an aggregate sentence of 174 months imprisonment. (Id. at 18). The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence that same day. (Doc. No. 48).

(¶6} On February 14, 2013, Holbrook filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 62). Holbrook now raises the following assignment of error:

Assignment of Error

The trial court's sentence of consecutive prison terms for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor consisting of 60 months for Count One, 60 months for Count Eight, and 54 months for Count Nine of the indictment for a combined total of 174 months was contrary to law and constituted an abuse of discretion in failing to properly consider and apply the felony sentencing guidelines set forth in Ohio Revised Code, Section 2929.11 and 2929.12.

(¶7} In his sole assignment of error, Holbrook argues that the record is unclear whether the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 at the sentencing hearing, and the trial court failed to reference specific criteria under the sentencing guidelines. He further argues that, had the trial court properly considered the sentencing factors, it would not have sentenced him to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling 174 months.

(¶8} A trial court's sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant's showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes' procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law. State v. Ramos, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-06-24, 2007-Ohio-767, ¶ 23 (the clear and convincing evidence standard of review set forth under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) remains viable with respect to those cases appealed under the applicable provisions of R.C. 2953.08(A), (B), and (C) * * *); State v. Rhodes, 12th ...


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.