State v. CremeensState v. Cremeens
{¶ 1} Donovan Cremeens appeals the conviction and sentence entered against him by the Vinton County Court of Common Pleas for Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Murder in Vinton County Case No. 05CR7571. Cremeens contends that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea to a bill of information that did not contain sufficient facts to support a conviction. Because this assignment of error relates to Cremeens‘s conviction for Gross Abuse of a Corpse in Case No. 06CR7967, which Cremeens has not appealed, we find that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Next, Cremeens contends that the trial court erred by failing to make any findings to support its imposition of maximum, consecutive sentences. Because the parties jointly recommended Cremeens‘s sentences, and the sentences are authorized by law, we find that, pursuant to
I.
{¶ 2} On January 16, 2005, Deputy Tony Wood of the Vinton County Sheriff‘s Department filed a complaint in the Vinton County Court stating that on or about January 15, 2005, Cremeens purposely caused the death of Marvin Hunt, in violation of
{¶ 3} On March 29, 2006, the trial court conducted a change of plea hearing. Cremeens agreed to enter a plea of guilty to an amended charge of Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Murder in violation of
{¶ 4} Cremeens now appeals his conviction and sentence in Case No. 05CR7571, and raises the following assignments of error: “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANT TO MAXIMUM CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WITHOUT FINDINGS. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING APPELLANT‘S PLEA TO THE BILL OF INFORMATION.”
II.
{¶ 5} In his second assignment of error, Cremeens contends that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea to the Gross Abuse of a Corpse charge set forth in the bill of information filed the morning of his plea hearing. Specifically, Cremeens contends that the facts enumerated in the bill of information are insufficient to support a conclusion that he is guilty of Gross Abuse of a Corpse in violation of
{¶ 6}
{¶ 7} Here, Cremeens‘s notice of appeal only designates that he appeals the March 29, 2006 judgment entry in Case No. 05CR7571. However, his second assignment of error relates to his guilty plea in Case No. 06CR7697. Because Cremeens did not file either a timely notice of appeal or a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal of his conviction for Gross Abuse of a Corpse in Case No. 06CR7697, we lack the necessary jurisdiction to consider his second assignment of error.
III.
{¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, Cremeens contends that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentences for each of his convictions, and by ordering him to serve those sentences consecutively. Specifically, Cremeens asserts that the trial court failed to consider the seriousness and recidivism factors enumerated in
{¶ 9} The version of
{¶ 10} In applying
{¶ 11} Moreover, we note that in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the portions of Ohio‘s statutory sentencing scheme that required sentencing courts to make factual findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than minimum sentences are unconstitutional. Id. at paragraphs 1-6 of the syllabus. In doing so, the Court severed the offending portions of the sentencing statutes, and retained those portions that do not violate the constitution. Id. at ¶ 96. The Court then held that “[t]rial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range, and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences.” Id. at paragraph seven of the syllabus. Furthermore, the Court recognized that “there is no mandate for judicial fact-finding in the general guidance statutes[,]” i.e.
{¶ 12} Here, Cremeens concedes that he and the prosecution submitted a joint sentencing recommendation that the court impose maximum, consecutive sentences, and that the court followed their joint recommendation. Therefore, so long as the sentences are authorized by law,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and Appellee recover of Appellant costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Vinton County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
If a stay of execution of sentence and release upon bail has been previously granted by the trial court or this court, it is continued for a period of sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of said stay is to allow appellant to file with the Ohio Supreme Court an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. The stay as herein continued will terminate in any event at the expiration of the sixty day period.
The stay shall terminate earlier if the appellant fails to file a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec.2 of the Rules of Practice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Additionally, if the Ohio Supreme Court dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of said sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Abele, J. and McFarland, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.