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. Bentley

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Ashtabula

December 11, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRIDGETTE LYNN BENTLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

         Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2015 CR 00738.

          Nicholas A. Iarocci, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt For Plaintiff-Appellee.

          Myron P. Watson, For Defendant-Appellant.

          OPINION

          THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.

         {¶1} Appellant, Bridgette Lynn Bentley, pleaded guilty to grand theft and was sentenced to 15 months in prison to run concurrent with her sentence in another case. She argues the trial court should have imposed a community control sanction. We affirm.

         {¶2} Bentley was indicted and charged with grand theft by the Ashtabula County Grand Jury, case number 2015-CR-738, and pleaded guilty in May of 2016. She was sentenced to 15 months in prison to run concurrent with her sentence in case number 2015-CR-742, involving breaking and entering, a fourth degree felony. This appeal is from her grand theft sentence and does not encompass her conviction and sentence for breaking and entering.

         {¶3} On the same date she pleaded guilty to grand theft, she also pleaded guilty to breaking and entering. Bentley's plea hearing and sentencing transcripts address both cases since she entered guilty pleas in each case at the same hearing, and the trial court imposed separate sentences at one sentencing hearing.

         {¶4} She raises one assigned error:

         {¶5} "The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it did not impose a community control sentence when the defendant was convicted of low-level non-violent offenses, and the court made no findings under Revised Code of Ohio 2929.13(B)(1)(c)."

         {¶6} We do not review criminal sentencing issues for an abuse of discretion, but instead pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2):

         {¶7} "The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.

         {¶8} "The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:

         {¶9} "(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;

         {¶10} "(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary ...


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.