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. Aburas

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Clermont

May 21, 2018

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WILSON MUSA ABURAS, Defendant-Appellant.

          CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2016-CR-00456

          D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, for plaintiff-appellee

          W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, Robert F. Benintendi, for defendant-appellant

          OPINION

          PIPER, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Wilson Aburas, appeals his 60-month sentence from the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to sexual battery.

         {¶ 2} Aburas was charged with one count of first-degree felony rape after he forced his close friend to have sexual intercourse with him against her will. Aburas later agreed to plead guilty to a third-degree felony charge of sexual battery. The trial court then sentenced Aburas to 60 months in prison after considering information from a presentence investigation report ("PSI"), which included information about Aburas' military history. Aburas now appeals his sentence, raising the following assignments of error. We will address the assignments of error together, as they are interrelated.

         {¶ 3} Assignment of Error No. 1:

         {¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT'S 60-MONTH PRISON SENTENCE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.

         {¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 2:

         {¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER WHETHER MR. ABURAS HAD AN EMOTIONAL, MENTAL, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION THAT IS TRACEABLE TO HIS SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES.

         {¶ 7} Aburas argues in his assignments of error that the trial court erred in imposing the 60-month sentence.

         {¶ 8} An appellate court reviews the imposed sentence according to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which governs all felony sentences. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court does not review the sentencing court's decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 10. Rather, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court can modify or vacate a sentence only if the appellate court finds 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.

         {¶ 9} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court "considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes postrelease control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range." State v. Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-100, 2016-Ohio-2890, ¶ 8. Thus, this court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is either contrary to law or unsupported by the record. Marcum at ¶ 7.

         {¶ 10} After reviewing the record, we find that Aburas' sentence was not contrary to law. Aburas was convicted of a third-degree felony, which according to R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a), is subject to a sentencing range of 12 to 60 months. The trial court's 60-month sentence was therefore within the statutory range. Moreover, the trial court addressed the purposes and principles of sentencing according to R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 at both the sentencing hearing and within the trial court's sentencing ...


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.