[Cite as State v. Cemino, 2011-Ohio-5690.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO : 

Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 24442 

v. : T.C. NO. 10CR2336 

MICHAEL J. CEMINO : (Criminal appeal from 

 Common Pleas Court) 

Defendant-Appellant : 

 : 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 4th day of November , 2011. 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

JOHNNA M. SHIA, Atty. Reg. No. 0067685, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. 

Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

JOSE M. LOPEZ, Atty. Reg. No. 0019580, 18 East Water Street, Troy, Ohio 45373 

 

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

FROELICH, J. 

{¶ 1} On August 6, 2010, Defendant-appellant Michael Cemino was 

indicted for felonious assault, kidnapping, and rape of his wife and one count of 

kidnapping a child under the age of thirteen. Cemino pled guilty to felonious 

assault, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced 
2

Cemino to six years in prison. Cemino appeals his sentence. 

I 

{¶ 2} Cemino’s First Assignment of Error: 

{¶ 3} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ACTED CONTRARY TO LAW IN 

ITS SENTENCING OF MICHAEL J. CEMINO AS IT FAILED TO PROPERLY 

CONSIDER THE RECORD AND ALL MITIGATING FACTORS IN R.C. 2929.11 

AND 2929.12.” 

{¶ 4} In his first assignment of error, Cemino argues that the trial court 

abused its discretion in imposing a six-year prison sentence without considering the 

overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 or the 

seriousness and recidivism factors enumerated in R.C. 2929.12. Specifically, 

Cemino insists that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on evidence not in 

the record in finding that the victim had suffered from vision and hearing loss, when 

“the medical records reflected the victim suffered only facial contusions and no 

other serious injuries.” 

{¶ 5} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, ¶13, the Ohio 

Supreme Court set forth a two-step procedure for reviewing felony sentences. 

First, “an appellate court must ensure that the trial court has adhered to all 

applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence. As a purely legal question, 

this is subject to review only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly 

contrary to law, the standard found in R.C. 2953.08(G). If on appeal the trial 

court’s sentence is, for example, outside the permissible statutory range, the 

sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Id. at ¶¶14-15. “If this first 
3

step is satisfied, the second step requires that the trial court’s decision be reviewed 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. An abuse of discretion means that 

the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. 

Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219. “[I]n the felony sentencing 

context, ‘[a]n abuse of discretion can be found if the sentencing court unreasonably 

or arbitrarily weighs the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R .C. 2929.12.’” State v. 

Hardin-Moore, Montgomery App. No. 24237, 2011-Ohio-4666, ¶14, quoting State v. 

Jordan, Columbiana App. No. 09 CO 31, 2010-Ohio-3456, ¶12. 

{¶ 6} “After [State v.] Foster, [109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856,] trial courts 

are not required to make any findings or give reasons before imposing any 

sentence within the authorized statutory range, including maximum, consecutive, or 

more than minimum sentences, Foster, syllabus at ¶ 7. Courts, nevertheless, are 

still required to comply with the sentencing laws unaffected by Foster, such as R.C. 

2929.11 and 2929.12 which require consideration of the purposes and principles of 

felony sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors. State v. Mathis, 109 

Ohio St.3d 54, 846 N.E.2d 1, 2006–Ohio–855. However, a sentencing court does 

not have to make any specific findings to demonstrate its consideration of those 

general guidance statutes. Foster at ¶ 42; State v. Lewis, Greene App. No. 06 CA 

119, 2007–Ohio–6607. And, where the record is silent, a presumption exits that 

the trial court has considered the factors. State v. Adams (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 

295, 297, 525 N.E.2d 1361. Further, where a criminal sentence is within statutory 

limits, an appellate court should accord the trial court the presumption that it 

considered the statutory mitigating factors. State v. Taylor (1992), 76 Ohio App.3d 
4

835, 839, 603 N.E.2d 401; State v. Crouse (1987), 39 Ohio App.3d 18, 20, 528 

N.E.2d 1283. Consequently, the appellant has an affirmative duty to show 

otherwise.” State v. Ramey, Clark App. No. 2010 CA 19, 2011-Ohio-1288, ¶47. 

{¶ 7} Cemino was convicted of Felonious Assault, in violation of R.C. 

2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second degree, which carries a possible prison term 

of two to eight years. R.C. 2929.14(A)(2). The trial court imposed a six-year 

sentence, which falls within the prescribed statutory range. 

{¶ 8} The trial court afforded defense counsel and the prosecutor an 

opportunity to be heard, and the court allowed Cemino to make a statement before 

imposing sentence. Although not required to do so, the trial court offered an 

extensive explanation at the sentencing hearing for imposing a six-year sentence 

on Cemino. The court explained, “You did something ugly, nasty, despicable and 

disgusting to [your wife] * * * And you need to think about how disgusting your 

behavior is.” The court read from the victim’s letter to the court, in which the victim 

expressed her mental turmoil over her husband’s actions. Cemino’s wife explained 

that she has vision and hearing loss, and scars in her throat, which the trial court 

believed to be true in light of the nature of the beating Cemino inflicted upon his 

wife. The court stated that Cemino’s behavior demonstrates that he is a man who 

belongs in prison; he is “a man who does not know control.” 

{¶ 9} The court also explained that Cemino’s actions demonstrate an 

escalation in violence over time, stating “I find as a matter of law that his behavior 

escalates in violence, beginning with the abduction of a little girl who was caught 

before anything or - - or he was found out and he was caught before anything 
5

happened and then we escalate and go into this terrible, terrible action that 

occurred on that night.” Cemino had misdemeanor convictions for criminal 

damaging and driving under the influence, and he had been released from prison 

on an unrelated conviction for attempted abduction just the week before the 

felonious assault. 

{¶ 10} Cemino contends that the trial court abused its discretion by making a 

factual error when the court found that the victim suffered from permanent vision 

and hearing loss. Cemino made no explicit objection to his sentence, although he 

did ask the trial court for an explanation of why it imposed a six-year sentence. 

We will view this as sufficient to have preserved Cemino’s right to appeal his 

sentence. 

{¶ 11} In support of his claim that the trial court abused its discretion, 

Cemino insists that the medical records from the night of the assault indicate that 

the victim “had facial contusions and no other serious injuries.” However, as the 

State points out, those were not the only medical records, nor were facial 

contusions the only evidence of injury to the victim. There were photographs not 

only of the facial contusions, but also of cuts to the victim’s mouth and the inside of 

her throat, as well as cuts and bruises on her arm and other parts of her body. 

Additionally, the victim exhibited swelling to both sides of her head and distorted 

vision. 

{¶ 12} Contrary to Cemino’s assertion, there was ample evidence from which 

the trial court could reasonably conclude that the victim had suffered from vision 
6

and hearing loss. Prior to imposing sentence, the trial court considered1

 the 

December 1, 2010 victim impact statement and the victim’s November 9, 2010 

letter to the court, both of which were included in the pre-sentence investigation 

report, and both of which indicate that the victim suffered from vision and hearing 

loss. A trial court may consider the contents of a pre-sentence investigation report 

when imposing sentence. See, e.g., State v. Saunders, Greene App. No. 2009 CA 

82, 2011-Ohio-391, ¶29, citations omitted. 

{¶ 13} Furthermore, in imposing sentence a trial court may consider other 

charges filed against a defendant that were dismissed as part of a plea agreement. 

State v. Williams, Montgomery App. No. 19026, 2002-Ohio-2908, citing State v. 

Wiles (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 71, 78. In exchange for Cemino’s guilty plea to the 

felonious assault charge, the State agreed to dismiss three additional felony 

charges against Cemino: two counts of kidnapping and one count of rape. 

{¶ 14} We conclude that Cemino’s sentence is not contrary to law and that 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a six-year sentence. 

Cemino’s first assignment of error is overruled. 

II 

{¶ 15} Cemino’s Second Assignment of Error: 

{¶ 16} “MICHAEL J. CEMINO’S SENTENCE WAS PREJUDICIALLY 

INFLUENCED BY JUDICIAL HOSTILITY AND/OR BIAS TO THE POINT OF 

VIOLATING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND TO BE 

 1

The court quoted extensively from the letter sent by the victim. 
7

FREE OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT UNDER THE FIFTH, EIGHTH 

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 

AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO STATE CONSTITUTION.” 

{¶ 17} Cemino concludes in his second assignment of error that since his 

sentence was not supported by the record, it must have been “based merely upon 

prejudice and bias” against him. “Judicial bias is defined as ‘a hostile feeling or 

spirit of ill will or undue friendship or favoritism toward one of the litigants or his 

attorney, with the formation of a fixed anticipatory judgment on the part of the judge, 

as contradistinguished from an open state of mind which will be governed by the 

law and facts.’” State v. Miller, Lucas App. No. L-08-1314, 2009-Ohio-3908, ¶20, 

quoting State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-2128, ¶34. “A trial judge is 

‘presumed not to be biased or prejudiced, and the party alleging bias or prejudice 

must set forth evidence to overcome the presumption of integrity.’ Weiner v. Kwiat, 

[Montgomery App.] No. 19289, 2003-Ohio-3409, ¶90, quoting Eller v. Wendy’s 

Internatl., Inc. (2000), 142 Ohio App.3d 321, 340 * * *.” Id., at ¶21. “[T]he 

appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome these 

presumptions.” In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 

2003-Ohio-5489, ¶5. 

{¶ 18} As evidence of the trial court’s alleged bias, Cemino insists that “the 

trial court not only scolded Appellant and his counsel in open court on a number of 

occasions but, in addition, handed down an excessive sentence based upon 

medical evidence unsupported by the record.” We have already concluded above 

that Cemino’s sentence was not excessive and that the trial court’s finding that 
8

Cemino’s wife had suffered from vision and hearing loss was supported by the 

record. 

{¶ 19} Cemino points to only two specific instances of so-called scolding. 

When Cemino’s attorney asked why his client was being given more than a 

minimum sentence, the court explained, “Your client doesn’t deserve the minimum 

sentence. You - - he doesn’t - - you don’t need to raise your eyebrows. He’s 

been sentenced to prison before. I know what that was about. And he would not 

admit to what he did and what he did was awful. 

{¶ 20} “Don’t shake your head. What you did was awful and I read that last 

report. I read it. We lived through it. You wouldn’t admit to what you did. You 

just got out of prison. You - - and then as soon as you get out of prison you do this 

awful act. He does not need the minimum sentence. And I don’t have to impose 

that based upon the kind of injuries that this lady suffered.” 

{¶ 21} The trial court’s brief directives do not indicate either hostility toward 

Cemino or favoritism toward the State; nor do they show that the trial court 

“specifically verbalize[d] personal bias or prejudice.” Miller, supra, at ¶21, citation 

omitted. The admonishments may have been intended to preserve for the record 

what the trial court deemed to be the inappropriate actions of Cemino and his 

attorney. The statements do not amount to compelling evidence of bias, and they 

are insufficient to overcome the presumption of trial court integrity. 

{¶ 22} Additionally, Cemino states “the trial court also acknowledged on the 

record it had considered Appellant’s prior criminal offense in determining 

Appellant’s sentence in this matter.” He implies that a trial court is not permitted to 
9

consider a defendant’s criminal record when sentencing him on a new conviction. 

To the contrary, as the trial court explained, a defendant’s criminal history is highly 

relevant to the issue of his likelihood for future recidivism. R.C. 2929.12(D). 

{¶ 23} In short, Cemino disagrees with the sentence that the trial court 

imposed. However, a party’s disagreement or dissatisfaction with a trial court’s 

ruling, without more, does not constitute bias or prejudice. In re Disqualification of 

Aubry, 117 Ohio St.3d 1245, 2006-Ohio-7231, ¶9, citation omitted. 

{¶ 24} Cemino’s second assignment of error is overruled. 

III 

{¶ 25} Having overruled both of Cemino’s assignments of error, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court. 

 . . . . . . . . . . 

FAIN, J. and DONOVAN, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Johnna M. Shia 

Jose M. Lopez 

Hon. Frances E. McGee