Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Clermont
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 2016-CR-00456
Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas
Horton, for plaintiff-appellee
Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, Robert F.
Benintendi, for defendant-appellant
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
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