State v. Wright
2011 Ohio 3583
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Wright indicted with co-defendant Webb for drug offenses and weapons-related offenses; pled guilty to having weapons while under disability and child endangerment, other counts dismissed.
- Sentence on July 28, 2010: four-year prison term and $250 fine for weapons while under disability; $250 fine for child endangerment; forfeiture of two guns; license suspended until January 28, 2011.
- Facts from Wright’s affidavit: a package delivered to his home contained marijuana; Wright disclosed guns in the attic behind two locked doors in a locked safe, with no key.
- Appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the sentence and the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea; trial court denied the motion to withdraw on October 13, 2010 without a hearing.
- The trial court’s sentence is reviewed under Kalish; portion suspending Wright’s driver’s license is deemed moot because it is not authorized by statute; remaining sentence is reviewed for reasonableness and compliance with statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of withdrawal of guilty plea was reviewable | Wright: denial violated due process rights. | Wright: appeal should review denial. | Not reviewed due to improper designation in the appeal. |
| Whether the four-year sentence for one count of having weapons while under disability is clearly contrary to law or an abuse of discretion | Sentence excessive and unlawful. | Sentence within statutory range for a third-degree felony. | Not clearly contrary to law; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the license suspension portion of the sentence is lawful | License suspension authorized by statute. | License suspension not provided by statute for this offense. | Moot; the remedy is unavailable because the time expired. |
| Whether the sentencing record supports that the court considered statutory purposes | Court failed to show consideration of sentencing purposes in Kalish framework. | The sentencing entry states the court considered required factors. | Prison sentence upheld; entry indicates consideration of purposes; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parks v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 77 Ohio App.3d 426 (1991) (appeals jurisdiction requires designation of the judgment appealed)
- Schloss v. McGinness, 474 N.E.2d 666 (1984) (appeal jurisdiction requires proper designation)
- Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two-step Kalish framework for sentencing review)
- Brunning, 2011-Ohio-1936 (2011) (sentence not clearly contrary to law; standard review of sentence)