Youngstown Daily Legal News

Veteran thief has appeal rejected by appellate court

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 4, 2014

The 11th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas by ruling that the lower court properly sentenced a man to maximum consecutive prison sentences after considering his criminal history.

Vernon Demeo appealed from the Oct. 31, 2013 judgment entry from the Ashtabula court, which sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment on each of two counts of grand theft.

Demeo argued that the sentences exceeded what is necessary to achieve the purposes of felony sentencing and the court did not consider the proper factors before ordering that his sentences run consecutively.

Case summary states that Demeo was indicted on three counts of grand theft and one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle.

The charges stemmed from Demeo’s involvement in a multi-county theft ring which stole vehicles and equipment for stripping.

“It appears Mr. Demeo used the money obtained to support his girlfriend, their two children and his heroin habit,” wrote Judge Colleen O’Toole on behalf of the court of appeals’ three-judge panel.

Following his arraignment, Demeo was released on a recognizance bond and later pleaded guilty to two counts of grand theft in exchange for the dismissal of the other charges.

However, Demeo failed to appear at his sentencing hearing, citing car trouble.

At a rescheduled hearing, Demeo informed the trial court that he had cooperated with authorities as an informant in the case and he requested intensive probation in lieu of a prison sentence.

The state countered by citing Demeo’s extensive criminal background and requesting a period of incarceration.

In sentencing Demeo to maximum, consecutive prison terms, the trial court commented on his criminal history and the fact that Demeo had been sentenced to community control sanctions in the past but repeatedly violated the terms of those sanctions.

The court also pointed out Demeo’s failure to appear at an interview arranged as part of the presentence investigation.

Upon appeal, Demeo claimed that his sentence was excessive and that mitigating factors favored a shorter prison term.

“Mr. Demeo notes there is no presumption prison sentences should be imposed for fourth-degree felonies, and that the presentence report suggested intensive supervision,” wrote Judge O’Toole. “He argues his service as an informant is a mitigating factor showing his conduct was less serious than that normally constituting the offense.”

Demeo also claimed he showed genuine remorse and was unlikely to reoffend.

Judge O’Toole cited the trial court’s judgment entry, which stated, “The court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public.”

The lower court also pointed out Demeo’s criminal background and stated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crimes.

“There is no requirement that a sentencing court, when making the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, give its underlying reasoning,” wrote Judge O’Toole. “But in this case, the trial court did. ... These findings are supported by the record.”

The appellate panel held that the trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences and went on to affirm the court’s decision to make those sanctions the maximum allowed under law.

“In it’s judgment entry, the trial court set forth the considerations leading it to fashion the sentence imposed,” wrote Judge O’Toole, noting that a likelihood of recidivism and Demeo’s past failures at rehabilitation were among those factors weighed by the court.

Finding no merit to any of Demeo’s arguments, the appellate panel affirmed the judgment of the Ashtabula County court.

Presiding Judge Timothy Cannon and Judge Diane Grendell concurred.

The case is cited State v. Demeo, 2014-Ohio-2012.

[Back]