Court Opinion

ID: 9505456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:05:02.505925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:30.309230
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, C.J.,
dissenting.
Smith has argued that a number of points reflecting on his mental health should have been given mitigating weight by the trial judge. Some of these proffers, like "antisocial personality disorder" and "impulse control problems," are characteristics so commonly associated with violent crimes that I am not surprised that Judge Cherry did not find them mitigating.
Others, like paranoid schizophrenia, stand on firmer ground and probably should have been given some weight.
I vote to affirm, however, because there are some fifteen aggravating cireum-stances found by the trial court in a lengthy and precise sentencing order and not challenged on appeal. These include a list of prior felonies both here and in Ohio, committing the current offenses while on probation, failure to respond to numerous past efforts at counseling and treatment programs, "no remorse whatsoever," selection of a victim a foot shorter and sixty pounds lighter, and a long campaign designed to terrify the victim before the crime, to name a few.
The court's sentencing order runs to nine pages single-spaced in the appellant's brief on appeal. It is both thoughtful and meticulous, and it persuades me that the sentence is appropriate.
I would affirm rather than remand.