State v. Harris

• Docket Number: 112549
• Decision Date: 25 January 2024
• Citation: 2024 Ohio 246
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYSHAWN HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2024-Ohio-246

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYSHAWN HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 112549

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

January 25, 2024

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-21-664681-A, CR-22-674711-A, and CR-23-678460-A

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Omar Siddiq and Gregory Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.

Mary Catherine Corrigan, for appellant.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

LISA B. FORBES, J.

{¶ 1} Rayshawn Harris ("Harris") appeals his five-to-six-year prison sentence, which was imposed after he pled guilty to burglary, attempted felonious assault, and two counts of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol ("OVI"). After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court's decision.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On January 31, 2023, Harris pled guilty to burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(1), a second-degree felony, with a notice-of-prior-conviction specification; attempted felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2903.11(A)(1), a third-degree felony; and OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.09(A)(1)(a), a fourth-degree felony.

{¶ 3} On February 4, 2023 - four days later - Harris was charged with another OVI. On March 16, 2023, Harris pled guilty to his most recent OVI, bringing his total to six OVI convictions.

{¶ 4} Also on March 16, 2023, the court sentenced Harris to an indefinite term of two-to-three years in prison for the burglary, to run concurrent to two years in prison for the attempted felonious assault, to run consecutive to 18 months in prison for each of the two OVIs. Harris's aggregate prison term is five-to-six years.

{¶ 5} Harris appeals raising three assignments of error for our review:

I. The trial court's sentence was contrary to law.

II. The appellant's constitutional right to due process was violated when the trial court was neither impartial or neutral.

III. The trial court erred by imposing an unconstitutional sentence pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act.

II. Felony Sentencing

{¶ 6} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides, in part, that when reviewing felony sentences, the appellate court's standard is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion; rather, if this court "clearly and convincingly" finds that (1) "the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * *" or (2) "the sentence is otherwise contrary to law," then we may conclude that the court erred in sentencing. See also State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231. In State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 39, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) "does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12."

{¶ 7} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law "where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applies post-release control, and sentences a defendant within the permissible statutory range." State v. A.H., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98622, 2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10.

{¶ 8} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.11(A), the three overriding purposes of felony sentencing are "to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others," "to punish the offender," and "to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources." Additionally, the sentence imposed shall be "commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and its impact on the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders." R.C. 2929.11(B).

{¶ 9} Furthermore, in imposing a felony sentence, "the court shall consider the factors set forth in [R.C. 2929.12(B) and (C)] relating to the seriousness of the conduct [and] the factors provided in [R.C. 2929.12(D) and (E)] relating to the likelihood of the offender's recidivism * * *." R.C. 2929.12. However, this court has held that "[although the trial court must consider the principles and purposes of sentencing as well as the mitigating factors, the court is not required to use particular language or make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors." State v. Carter, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103279, 2016-Ohio-2725, ¶ 15.

{¶ 10} In his first assignment of error, Harris argues that the trial court "blatantly failed to take into consideration [R.C.] 2929.12" and 2929.11. Specifically, Harris argues that the court "disregarded [his] serious alcoholism and need for help, by stating that he believed [Harris] did not want help." We note that Harris does not challenge the postrelease control aspect of his sentence or whether his sentence is within the statutory range. Therefore, we need not review these issues.

{¶ 11} Our review of the record shows that the trial court considered the following at Harris's sentencing hearing relating to RC. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

{¶ 12} Harris's presentence-investigation report indicates that "the victim suffered a fractured jaw" as a result of Harris assaulting her in front of her five-year-old child. The record also indicates that the "victim was beaten so badly that she was unconscious until the morning * * *." Concerning the seriousness of Harris's conduct, the court stated the following: "You know, did you just pummel her with your fists in front of her five year old, strangled her threw her down the steps? That's enough for me."

{¶ 13} Defense counsel stated the following on the record:

My client is 38 years old. As you know he has a 13-year-old son. He was employed. He has the support of his family.

He also has a serious alcohol addiction. Which absent that underlying issue we - we are probably not here today. We are probably - and he's probably not here on prior occasions in various courts.

{¶ 14} Defense counsel stated that Harris makes "good decisions" when he is sober, noting that Harris appeared in court knowing he was going to prison. "And he is here today willing to accept the consequences for his actions on these various dates." Defense counsel read letters from Harris's brother, mother, and employer, all of which showed support for Harris. Defense counsel also noted "the remorse [Harris] feels for the injuries that he inflicted on the victim in this case."

{¶ 15} Harris stated the following on the record:

I would like to apologize to the victim * * * in this situation. I would like to apologize to you as well * * * for you giving me an opportunity and blowing it.

And I w[ould] also like to just - I would like to say sorry for the things that I've done.

And that's - and that alcohol is a major problem with me, and - and that it definitely played a factor in a lot of everything that has gone on.

{¶ 16} The court repeatedly asked Harris why he assaulted the victim, and Harris repeatedly answered that "alcohol played a part" in the situation. According to Harris, other than the alcohol, he did not know "what was the cause" of the altercation. The court continued:

I'm just going to tell you, you want to come in here to this court, blame everything on alcohol, and I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it.

Because there's plenty of people that have alcohol and drug problems and they're not violent.

And you've been given every opportunity in the world to clean up your act.

And you've thumbed your nose at your parents, at your boss, at your girlfriend, at the former person in your life, you've assaulted her.

So for the record, because he's going to prison for a substantial period of incarceration, I want to indicate that this is the record that this individual has: He has * * * first of all, four prior [OVI] convictions. In Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, in Bedford, in Willoughby, in Cleveland Municipal Court.

{¶ 17} As to Harris's criminal history, the court found that when he was 21 years old, he was charged with attempted murder, four counts of felonious assault, and aggravated riot. Ultimately, Harris pled guilty to aggravated assault and was sentenced to prison. Harris was ordered to abstain from alcohol, bars, and "illegal drug usage," and he was "ordered into substance abuse counseling" multiple times. Harris was convicted of various crimes in 2008 and 2009, including drug abuse and burglary. In 2010, Harris was convicted of domestic violence. In 2012, he was convicted of trespassing, in 2013, he was convicted of trafficking in marijuana, and in 2016, he was convicted of disorderly conduct, criminal damaging, and child endangering. Harris's criminal history continued with additional convictions in 2017, 2019, and 2020.

{¶ 18} The court noted on the record that Harris was "given every opportunity in the world to rehabilitate" himself, but his "crimes are becoming even more violent." The court stated that Harris had a "careless disregard, some would say ruthless indifference to the safety of the people in the community."

{¶ 19} In the court's journal entry memorializing Harris's felony sentence, the court stated that it "considered all required factors of the law."

{¶ 20} As noted previously in this opinion, the R.C 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors that a court must consider when imposing a felony sentence include the purposes and principles of sentencing, the seriousness of the offender's conduct, and the likelihood of recidivism. ...