State v. Grant
111 N.E.3d 791
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2018Background
- Anthony Grant pleaded guilty in three Cuyahoga County cases: involuntary manslaughter with a 3-year firearm spec (CR-15-598262-A); attempted aggravated robbery with a 1-year firearm spec (CR-15-598310-A); and two counts of having weapons while under disability plus carrying a concealed weapon (CR-15-599943-A).
- Parties agreed to an aggregate sentencing range of 6–20 years for the first two cases (statutory maximum aggregate would have been greater); no negotiated cap for the third case.
- Trial court imposed: 11 years (8 + 3 firearm) in CR-15-598262-A; 9 years (8 + 1 firearm) in CR-15-598310-A; 18 months on each count in CR-15-599943-A (concurrent); ran the first two consecutively for 20 years and then consecutive to the 18-month aggregate for a total of 21.5 years; also imposed postrelease control and court costs.
- On appeal, the court first addressed reviewability under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) of the 20-year aggregate sentence entered within the agreed 6–20 year range.
- The majority held that an agreed sentencing range is a jointly recommended sentence; a sentence imposed within such a range that comports with mandatory sentencing provisions is “authorized by law” and not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Because the 20-year aggregate was within the agreed range and authorized by law, it was not reviewable.
- The court reviewed only the separate 18-month sentences in CR-15-599943-A and rejected challenges to (1) consecutive-sentence findings (court had made on-record findings and incorporated them in the entry), (2) consideration of juvenile history, and (3) imposition of court costs.
Issues
| Issue | Grant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an agreed sentencing range (vs. a specific term) is a "jointly recommended sentence" immune from review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) | Range agreement should remain reviewable; Grant preserved challenge to aggregate sentence and consecutive treatment | Range agreements are like specific-term agreements; a defendant who accepts a range implicitly agrees to sentences within it, including nonmandatory consecutive terms | Agreed sentencing ranges are jointly recommended; a sentence imposed within such a range that complies with mandatory provisions is authorized by law and not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) |
| Whether consecutive sentences imposed (in the unagreed third case) have proper statutorily required findings | Trial court failed to make/record required findings to justify consecutive sentence | Court made the R.C. 2929.14(C) findings on the record and in the entry; record supports the findings | Findings were made on the record and in the entry; appellate court will not reverse absent clear and convincing showing the record does not support them; assignment overruled |
| Whether trial court improperly considered juvenile adjudications when imposing consecutive sentences | Cites State v. Hand: juvenile adjudications cannot be treated as adult convictions for enhancement; court should not rely on juvenile history | Juvenile adjudications may be considered as part of "criminal history" for R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when deciding consecutive sentences | Hand concerns enhancement; juvenile history may be considered for consecutive-sentence analysis; assignment overruled |
| Whether imposition of court costs violated statutory or constitutional protections (including failure to consider ability to pay) | Court should consider ability to pay; some statutes cited require notice/consideration | R.C. 2947.23 mandates assessment of prosecution costs; waiver is discretionary; notice requirements for community sanctions do not apply to prison sentences | Court correctly imposed costs; statute requires costs be imposed (waiver discretionary); ability-to-pay procedures cited by Grant inapplicable to court costs here; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010) (an agreed sentence is "authorized by law" only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions)
- State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (2005) (joint recommendation to impose consecutive sentences removes need for judge to make consecutive-sentence findings; such jointly recommended consecutive sentence is not reviewable)
- State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94 (2016) (if jointly recommended sentence includes nonmandatory consecutive terms, omission of statutory findings does not render sentence reviewable)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make the required consecutive-sentence findings on the record and incorporate them in the journal entry; reasons need not be recited verbatim)
- State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94 (2016) (juvenile adjudication cannot be treated as an adult conviction for purposes of penalty enhancement)
- State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (2018) (trial court retains jurisdiction to waive costs under R.C. 2947.23(C))
- State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106 (2015) (R.C. 2947.23 requires assessment of prosecution costs against all criminal defendants; waiver for indigency is discretionary)