State v. Smoot
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Smoot, 2002-Ohio-2364.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-01-1359 Appellee Trial Court No. CR-01-1818 v. Kevin Smoot DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Appellant Decided: May 17, 2002 * * * * * Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael J. Loisel, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Carol L. Damrauer, for appellant. * * * * * KNEPPER, J. {¶1} This is an appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas that found appellant guilty of one count of breaking and entering, a fifth-degree felony, and imposed the maximum sentence of twelve months in prison. Pursuant to 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 12(C), we sua sponte assign this case to the accelerated calendar. {¶2} Appellant argues in support of his appeal that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence of twelve months without making the required findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C). This court has thoroughly reviewed the record of proceedings in the trial court, including the transcript of sentencing and the court's judgment entry. Upon consideration thereof, we find that, in support of its decision to impose the maximum sentence and in accordance appellant's with R.C. prior 2929.14(C), convictions for the trial breaking court and considered entering and robbery, as well as the fact that appellant committed the instant offense while on community control. See State v. Kessinger (Sept. 14, 2001), Erie App. No. E-00-055. Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is not well-taken. {¶3} On consideration whereof, this court finds that appellant was not prejudiced and the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. James R. Sherck, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Richard W. Knepper, J. Mark L. Pietrykowski, P.J. CONCUR. ____________________________ JUDGE ____________________________ JUDGE 2.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
