STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNOLD BLACK, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 108335
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, County of Cuyahoga
January 23, 2020
2020-Ohio-188
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-17-618138-A
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 23, 2020
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kerry A. Sowul, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Walter H. Edwards, Jr., for appellant.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Arnold Black, Jr., appeals his three convictions for rape, which include a firearm specification, and the aggregate 13-year term of imprisonment that was consecutively imposed to a 26-year term of imprisonment Black was serving in an unrelated matter. We affirm.
{¶ 3} In the first assignment of error, Black claims his guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the trial court failed to substantially comply with the requirement to advise Black of the sex offender classification requirements that are part of the penalty for his offenses.
{¶ 4} “When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 1996-Ohio-179, 660 N.E.2d 450. The standard of review for determining whether a plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary within the meaning of
{¶ 5} In addition, when challenging his guilty plea based on the trial court‘s lack of substantial compliance, a defendant must also show a prejudicial effect — that the plea would not have been otherwise entered but for the error. State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 32, citing Nero at 108.
{¶ 7} Even if we assumed, for the sake of discussion, that the trial court‘s advisement regarding the registration requirements was somehow deficient, it is abundantly evident that Black was not prejudiced thereby. Black was already subjected to the same reporting requirements, which were not expanded by the newest conviction. It cannot be credibly argued that had Black been advised of the full extent of the reporting requirements stemming from his newest crimes, he would have forgone pleading guilty to the three rape charges with the remainder
{¶ 8} In the second assignment of error, Black claims that the record does not support the consecutive sentencing finding that Black committed the newest crimes while awaiting trial or sentencing or under community control or postrelease control sanctions.
{¶ 9} Felony sentences are reviewed under the standard provided in
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} We need not extensively consider Black‘s argument that one of the alternative findings under
at least two of the multiple offenses were committed in this case as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by said multiple offenses was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of defendant‘s conduct.
{¶ 12} In the third and final assignment of error, Black claims that the trial court failed to consider the principles of felony sentencing under
{¶ 13} When reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts apply the standard of review set forth in
{¶ 14} At the sentencing hearing and again in the final entry of conviction, the trial court expressly considered all that is required by law. Id., see also State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 243, citing State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100206, 2014-Ohio-1520, ¶ 14 (trial court fulfills its obligation to consider the sentencing factors by expressly indicating such in the
{¶ 15} We note, however, that Black does not actually appear to be challenging the trial court‘s consideration of the required factors and principles, but instead he appears to disagree with the trial court‘s weighing of the sentencing factors. Importantly, the trial court imposed five-year terms on all counts, only two of which were imposed consecutively and, in addition, imposed the three-year term on the firearm specification consecutive to the ten-year, base aggregate term.
{¶ 16} The entirety of Black‘s argument on this point is as follows:
Appellant certainly has a criminal history, but he has also spent the entirety of his adult life incarcerated. Tr. p. 138. Appellant has experienced some issues during his incarceration, but he has not committed any sexual offenses and has only been in three fights over the course of approximately ten years. Tr. p. 141. All of the offenses in Appellant‘s 2008 case and the current case occurred within a four-month span. Tr. p. 149. The court noted that had it sentenced Appellant for all of the cases at one time, it would have imposed a sentence of approximately twenty-six years total. Id. Prior to this matter, Appellant was scheduled to be released in 2034. Tr. p. 101. Now, despite the trial court‘s contention that twenty-six years was an appropriate aggregate sentence for this case and Appellant‘s prior case, he will be incarcerated until 2047.
It appears that Black is challenging the aggregate length of the consecutive sentences and not the individual sentences imposed on each felony count in this case. Having already concluded that there is no error in imposing the aggregate 13-year term of imprisonment in this case, consecutive to the aggregate 26-year term of
{¶ 17} In addition, the mere fact that Black disagrees with the trial court‘s decision based on its independent consideration of the sentencing factors is not a basis for this court to reverse the lower-range sentences imposed on each individual felony. In Taylor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107881, 2019-Ohio-3367, this type of argument was thoroughly addressed and rejected. As the court succinctly framed the issue,
In an effort to challenge the adequacy of the trial court‘s statutory considerations, [appellant] is merely asking this court to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, which, as stated, appellate courts are not permitted to do. Moreover, by asking this court to view the seriousness and scope of his conduct in light of the relevant mitigating factors, [appellant] is encouraging this court to independently weigh the sentencing factors, which appellate courts are also not permitted to do.
(Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 17. The trial court in this case considered the factors Black highlights in this appeal. That is all that is required by law. Id. We are unable to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the imposition of the five-year terms of imprisonment on each of the first-degree felonies to which Black pleaded guilty.
{¶ 18} The third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 19} Black‘s convictions are affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR