State v. Hosey, Unpublished Decision (5-7-2003)
State v. Hosey, Unpublished Decision (5-7-2003)
Opinion of the Court
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made: {¶ 1} Tyonne Hosey, appellant, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
{¶ 2} On November 26, 2001, Mr. Hosey and another defendant were each indicted for one count of rape, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} Mr. Hosey raises one assignment of error:"THE TRIAL COURT'S SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS UPON THE APPELLANT WAS CONTRARY TO THE LAW PER R.C.
{¶ 4} In the first assignment of error, Mr. Hosey asserts that the trial court erred in imposing more than the minimum sentence with regard to the charge of rape. Specifically, Mr. Hosey cites to R.C.
{¶ 5} R.C.
{¶ 6} The Ohio Supreme Court has interpreted R.C.
{¶ 7} However, the trial court is not required to give reasons for its findings. Id. Further, this Court has previously held that the findings need not be in the transcript of the sentencing hearing if they are in the journal entry. See State v. Riggs (Oct. 11, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 19846; see, also, State v. Lute (Nov. 22, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 99CA007431.
{¶ 8} In the present case, the trial court noted that it had a "difficult time comprehending that a child who is 10 could be mistaken for [a] 14, 15 [year old]." Further, the court noted that it had "enormous difficulty with the age of this victim and with the fact that [the defendants did not have] the moral strength or courage to say [that they] shouldn't do this. [Specifically, they] shouldn't be engaging in this kind of conduct under these circumstances." The court addressed the first defendant and stated "I do not believe a minimum sentence is appropriate, based upon the age of the victim." The court thereafter addressed Mr. Hosey and stated "[b]oth defendants are equally culpable." In the journal entry, the court indicated that "[a] minimum sentence would demean the seriousness of the offense and would not adequately protect the public." Clearly, the trial court was referencing R.C.
{¶ 9} Mr. Hosey's assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
SLABY, P.J. and WHITMORE, J. CONCUR.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.