State v. AndersonState v. Anderson
Lead Opinion
OPINION
{¶ 1} Aрpellant, Willis Anderson, appeals from a sentencing judgment issued by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons thаt follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty on three counts of corrupting another with drugs, each count being a fourth degree felony in violation of
{¶ 3} From this judgment, appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal and nоw sets forth the following assignment of error for our consideration:
{¶ 4} “The trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences upon Appellant based upon findings not made by a jury nor admitted by Appellant is contrary to law and violates Appellant‘s right to due process, as guaranteed by the
{¶ 5} Under his sole assignment of error, appellant contends that, pеr Blakely v. Washington (2004), 124 S.Ct. 2531, the trial court erred by sentencing him to consecutive prison terms. We disagree.
{¶ 6} In Blakely, the defendant pleaded guilty to kidnapping involving the use of a firearm, a class B felony. In the state of Washington, the statutory maximum for a class B felony was ten years; however, other provisions of Washington law limited the range of sentences a judge could impose. Consequently, the “stаndard” statutory range for the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty was forty-nine to fifty-three months. Although the guidelines set forth the “standard” sentence, a court could enlarge the “standard” sentence if it found any of a non-exhaustive list of aggrаvating factors justifying the departure. In Blakely, the trial court determined the defendant acted with “deliberate cruelty” and imposed a sentence of ninety-months, a thirty-seven month upward departure from the “standard.”
{¶ 7} The United States Supreme Court reversеd the sentence, holding a trial court may not extend a defendant‘s sentence beyond the statutory maximum when the facts supporting the enhanced sentence are neither admitted by the defendant nor found by the jury. Id. The court defined the statutory mаximum as “the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” Id. at 2537. (Emphasis sic.)
{¶ 8} Appellant argues that the court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences exceeded the statutory maximum and was based upon findings not made by the jury or admitted by appellant, thereby violating Blakely and depriving him of due process.
{¶ 9} A court may impose a consecutive sentenсe for multiple offenses if it finds that the following three statutory factors under
{¶ 10} In the case sub judice, the court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish appellant and are not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger he poses to the public. The court further found that the harm caused by appellant‘s multiple offenses was so great or unusual that no single prison term adequately reflеcts the seriousness of his conduct.
{¶ 11} Despite the court‘s findings with respect to the statutory sentencing factors, this court has consistently held that a sentencing court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences does not violate the rule set forth in Blakely. See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 158 Ohio App.3d 597, 2004-Ohio-5939, at ¶ 26. See, also, State v. Allen, 11th Dist. No. 2004-L-038, 2005-Ohio-1415, at ¶ 29; State v. Semala; 11th Dist. No. 2003-L1-28, 2005-Ohio-2653, at ¶ 37. In doing so, we noted that Blakely is distinguishable from the instant case where consecutive sentences have been issued for multiple crimes. Specifically, we noted that Blakely dealt with sentencing for a single crime. See, e.g., Semala at ¶ 36. Therefore, Blakely does not apply to consecutive sentences “as long as the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for each individual underlying offense.” Semala at ¶ 36.
{¶ 12} Here, appellant was sentenced to a thirteen-month prison term on each count of corrupting another with drugs. Each count represented a fourth degree felony. For a fourth degree felony, the maximum prison term that the court could sentence appellant to was eighteen mоnths. Accordingly, the court‘s sentence of thirteen-month prison terms on each of the underlying offenses did not exceed the eighteen month statutory maximum. Thus, the court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences did not violate Blakely or appellant‘s right to due process.
{¶ 13} Based upon the foregoing analysis, appellant‘s sole assignment of error is without merit. We hereby affirm the trial court‘s sentencing judgment.
Christley, J., Ret., Elеventh Appellate District, sitting by assignment, concurs, O‘Neill, J., dissents with Dissenting Opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
{¶ 14} I respectfully dissent. While I personally agree with the sentence imposed by the trial court, I believe it is constitutionally infirm in light of the United States Supreme Court‘s decision in Blakely v. Washington.1 For the reasons stated in my prior concurring and dissenting opinions, the trial court‘s imposition of consecutive sentences violated the defendant‘s
{¶ 15} This matter should be remanded for resentencing consistent with Blakely v. Washington.