State v. Wagner
2012 Ohio 2791
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Wagner pled guilty to robbery (a third-degree felony) and was sentenced to the maximum five years.
- Earlier two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specs were dismissed as part of a plea agreement.
- Trial court conducted a PSI and sentenced within the statutory range after considering the evidence and records.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief; Wagner was given opportunity to file pro se brief, but did not.
- Appellate review proceeded under Penson and related standards; the appeal was deemed frivolous.
- Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, noting no arguable merit in the assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court comply with sentencing statutes and case law? | Wagner | Wagner | Yes; no clear-error in compliance; within range; presumption factors applied |
| Was the five-year sentence cruel and unusual punishment? | Wagner | Wagner | No; within statutory limits; not cruel and unusual given offense and record |
| Was the sua sponte continuance properly handled without a journal entry? | Wagner | Wagner | Waived by guilty plea; in any event no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (two-step review for felony sentences; compliance with sentencing statutes required)
- State v. Stevens, 2008-Ohio-5775 (Ohio 2d Dist.) (step-one analysis; sentencing within range subject to abuse-of-discretion review)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2006) (requirements of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; no need for specific findings)
- State v. Ramey, 2011-Ohio-1288 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2010 CA 19) (presumption of consideration of sentencing factors when record silent)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (pre-Foster standards limited; no need for certain judicial-fact-finding before sentencing)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2010) (HB 86 re-enactment; cited regarding consecutive sentencing procedures)