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. Burden

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

June 21, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee
v.
CURTIS BURDEN, Appellant

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2015 12 3949(A)

          ASHLEY L. JONES Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          THOMAS A. TEODOSIO, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Appellant, Curtis Burden, appeals from his sentence in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.

         I.

         {¶2} Mr. Burden pled guilty in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas to pandering obscenity involving a minor, a felony of the second degree, for viewing and disseminating graphic child pornography online, including the sexual assault and torture of children. He also created an online chat room to share these pictures and videos. The trial court sentenced him to six years in prison.

         {¶3} Mr. Burden now appeals from his sentence and raises two assignments of error for this Court's review.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE

         THE SIX-YEAR PRISON TERM RENDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD IN VIOLATION OF RC. [2929.11] AND RC. [2929.12]. []

         {¶4} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Burden argues that his sentence is contrary to law, not supported by the record, and must be vacated. We disagree.

         {¶5} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that "an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1; RC. 2953.08(G)(2). "Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established." Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477 (1954).

         {¶6} Mr. Burden argues that the trial court only briefly mentioned weighing the sentencing factors and seemed to indicate the sentence was based on an aggravating factor making this the worst form of the offense. He also argues that the court did not mention any other sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 or R.C. 2929.12, including mitigating factors that would ...


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.