STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RICHARD B. FREEMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 14-18-16
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY
February 25, 2019
2019-Ohio-669
Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 17CR0184. Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Cause Remanded.
Perry R. Parsons for Appellant
Raymond Kelly Hamilton for Appellee
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Richard B. Freeman (“Freeman“), brings this appeal from the August 21, 2018, judgment of the Union County Common Pleas Court sentencing Freeman to eighteen months in prison after he was convicted in a jury trial of Receiving Stolen Property in violation of
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On September 6, 2017, Freeman was indicted for Receiving Stolen Property in violation of
{¶3} At trial, the State presented evidence that James Ferguson turned in his leased 2013 Honda Civic to Germain in Dublin, Ohio, on July 14, 2017. The vehicle was received and was placed in one of Germain‘s lots, which spanned multiple properties and over ten acres. There were hundreds of preowned vehicles in
{¶4} On July 18, 2017, Deputy Phipps of the Union County Sheriff‘s Department conducted a traffic stop involving Freeman, who was driving the same 2013 Honda Civic that had been turned into Germain days prior. The traffic stop occurred between 1 and 2 a.m.
{¶5} During the traffic stop, Freeman made a number of false statements regarding whether he had a license and his social security number, making it difficult for Deputy Phipps to initially identify him. Once Deputy Phipps finally identified Freeman, he learned that Freeman did not have a license. The 2013 Honda Civic was also not registered to Freeman. Freeman told Deputy Phipps that he was borrowing it from a friend with the name “Miller,” though he could not provide “Miller‘s” contact information or a location that Deputy Phipps could contact “Miller.”
{¶6} Later that same day, Tim Gould, a pre-owned sales manager at Germain was contacted by an officer who indicated that one of Germain‘s vehicles, the 2013 Honda Civic, had been found being driven by Freeman. Gould testified that he then checked and found that the 2013 Honda Civic was not on the lot as it was supposed to be, and then he reported that it had been stolen. He indicated that at no time was Freeman given permission to take the vehicle.
{¶7} Freeman spoke with the police on two subsequent occasions and still could not provide the contact information of any individual who had purportedly loaned him the vehicle.
{¶8} The jury found Freeman guilty of Receiving Stolen Property as indicted. His case then proceeded to sentencing, wherein the trial court noted that Freeman had a criminal history dating back to 1969, with as many as fifteen felonies. The convictions included a number of prior Receiving Stolen Property charges. Based on his criminal history, the trial court sentenced Freeman to a maximum eighteen month prison term.
{¶9} A judgment entry memorializing Freeman‘s sentence was filed August 21, 2018.1 It is from this judgment that Freeman appeals, asserting the following assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. 1
The trial court erred when it imposed a maximum sentence upon the Appellant for a felony of the fourth degree.
Assignment of Error No. 2
The trial court erred when it failed to give the Appellant credit for jail time.
First Assignment of Error
{¶10} In Freeman‘s first assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred by imposing a maximum sentence on him. Specifically, he argues that the
Standard of Review
{¶11}
Analysis
{¶12} “‘The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum or more than [a] minimum sentence[].’ ” State v. Castle, 2nd Dist. Clark No. 2016-CA-16, 2016-Ohio-4974, ¶ 26, quoting State v. King, 2nd Dist. Clark No. 2012-CA-25, 2013-Ohio-2021, ¶ 45. Nevertheless, when exercising its sentencing discretion, a trial court must consider the statutory policies
{¶13}
{¶14} In the case sub judice, Freeman was convicted of Receiving Stolen Property in violation of
{¶15} More specifically, Freeman argues that the trial court‘s sentencing entry had a checklist for all of the sentencing factors in
{¶16} Since 1969, Freeman had been convicted of at least fifteen felonies, eleven of them since 1985. His prior convictions included similar offenses to the one before us, such as an Auto Theft in 2007, a Burglary, and multiple Receiving Stolen Property convictions. After reviewing Freeman‘s criminal history, the trial court stated that “Given your prior record, * * * a maximum sentence is warranted in this case.” (Tr. at 17).
{¶17} On appeal, we cannot find that the trial court‘s sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The trial court carefully analyzed all of the appropriate sentencing statutes and conducted a thorough examination of Freeman‘s lengthy criminal history. After reviewing all of these things, the trial court elected to impose a maximum eighteen month prison term on Freeman. The trial court‘s
Second Assignment of Error
{¶18} In Freeman‘s second assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred by neglecting to give him jail-time credit in this matter. The State actually concedes in its brief that the trial court failed to properly give Freeman jail-time credit, and urges this Court to remand this matter so that Freeman may receive proper credit.
{¶19} From the record before us, it does appear that Freeman would be entitled to jail-time credit. While denying a pretrial motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds that Freeman had filed, the trial court noted in its entry that the parties were in agreement that Freeman was incarcerated for 64 days awaiting trial on the charges in this case. Freeman argues on appeal that the trial court failed to give him credit for these days at sentencing, and the State agrees.
{¶20} On the basis of the record before us we are compelled to reverse this matter so that Freeman may receive appropriate jail-time credit. Therefore, Freeman‘s second assignment of error is sustained.
Conclusion
{¶21} For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Union County Common Pleas Court is affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Cause Remanded
ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
/jlr