Youngstown Daily Legal News

Man convicted of manslaughter fails to have sentenced reduced

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: May 12, 2014

The 8th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas when it ruled that the lower court made proper findings before it imposed maximum and consecutive sentences.

The defendant, Donzell Steele, pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and aggravated robbery with firearm specifications.

The trial court imposed an 11-year prison term for both counts and ordered them to run concurrently.

The firearm specifications were merged for sentencing and a one-year prison term was imposed, to run consecutive to the other sentence for a total of 12 years in prison.

Upon appeal, Steele argued that the sentence handed down from the trial court was not commensurate with the crime he committed.

“Although referencing the contrary-to-law standard for sentencing review, Steele asks this court to find his sentence to be arbitrary, capricious and disproportionate to his conduct,” wrote Judge Eileen A. Gallagher on behalf of the court of appeals. “We reiterate that this court no longer applies the abuse of discretion standard ... when reviewing a felony sentence.”

Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the new standard for review allows an appellate court to modify a trial court’s sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds “that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under the Ohio Revised Code or “that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.”

While Steele claimed that the trial court erred in imposing the maximum allowable prison terms, the district’s three-judge appellate panel held that, as long as a sentence falls within a defined statutory range, a trial court’s decision as to how long a sentence will be “is a pure exercise of discretion.”

Additionally, the court of appeals found that the trial court considered all the required factors of law including the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors outlined in R.C. 2929.12.

“Relevant to the trial court’s analysis under R.C. 2929.12, the trial court noted that a firearm was involved in this offense, that the offense resulted in the death of Steele’s younger compatriot, that Steele was arrested three time in four months for situations involving a firearm, that Steele had a prior juvenile offense involving a firearm and that Steele was awaiting sentencing on a separate case at the time of this offense,” wrote Judge Gallagher.

Combined, those factors were enough for the appellate panel to conclude that Steele’s sentence was not contrary to law.

The court of appeals proceeded to address Steele’s second assignment of error, in which he argued that the trial court violated the law by imposing consecutive sentences.

Again, Judge Gallagher cited the Revised Code which states that consecutive sentences may be imposed if they are necessary to protect the public from future crimes or to punish the offender and if they are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.

“Although the use of ‘talismanic words’ is not necessary, it must be clear from the record that the trial court actually made the required findings,” wrote Judge Gallagher.

After it reviewed the record the appellate panel concluded that, although the trial court did not use the exact language of the statute, it did make the required findings and properly imposed consecutive sentences.

Steele’s sentence was affirmed with Presiding Judge Kathleen Keough and Judge Tim McCormack concurring.

The case is cited State v. Steele, 2014-Ohio-1625.

[Back]