STATE OF OHIO v. JAMELL M. GAINES
No. 103476
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, County of Cuyahoga
July 7, 2016
[Cite as State v. Gaines, 2016-Ohio-4863.]
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-15-592611-A
BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Blackmon, P.J., and Laster Mays, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 7, 2016
Michael H. Murphy
20325 Center Ridge Road
Suite 512
Rocky River, Ohio 44116
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Kerry A. Sowul
Gregory J. Ochocki
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street, 9th Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jamell M. Gaines (“appellant“), brings this appeal challenging the trial court‘s sentence for aggravated menacing, domestic violence, having weapons while under disability, and drug possession. Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court‘s sentence was not commensurate with his offenses. After a thorough review of the record and law, this court affirms.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} The instant matter arose from an incident that occurred at appellant‘s cousin‘s house where appellant was living at the time. On January 12, 2015, appellant got into an argument with his relatives over an Xbox video game system. During the argument, appellant picked up a loaded handgun and pointed it at his 12-year-old cousin. Police responded to the house and found appellant‘s gun and cocaine under a mattress.
{¶3} In CR-15-592611-A, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury returned a four-count indictment charging appellant with (1) felonious assault, in violation of
{¶5} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on August 10, 2015. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard from the prosecutor, appellant‘s probation officer, defense counsel, and appellant. The trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of 180 days on Count 1, 180 days on Count 2, 30 months on Count 3, and 12 months on Count 4. The trial court ordered appellant to serve the counts concurrently, for a total prison term of 30 months. The trial court advised appellant that postrelease control is part of his sentence.
{¶6} Appellant filed the instant appeal assigning one error for review:
I. The sentence handed down by the trial court was not commensurate with the crime committed.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, appellant challenges the trial court‘s sentence. Appellant argues that the trial court‘s sentence is “arbitrary, capricious, and
{¶8} When reviewing felony sentences, this court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or it may vacate and remand the matter for resentencing, only if we clearly and convincingly find that either the record does not support the sentencing court‘s statutory findings or the sentence is contrary to law.
{¶9} When sentencing a defendant, the court must consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
{¶10} The sentencing court must consider the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in
{¶11}
{¶12} In the instant matter, appellant asks this court to find his sentence to be arbitrary, capricious, and disproportionate to his offenses. Appellant argues that the trial court‘s sentence is “clearly excessive in nature” and “contrary to the principles of fair play and substantial justice.” We disagree.
{¶13} The trial court sentenced appellant within the statutory range. Pursuant to
{¶15} Appellant further suggests that the trial court failed to consider
{¶16} The trial court‘s sentencing journal entry states, in relevant part, “[t]he court considered all required factors of the law. The court finds that prison is consistent with the purpose of
{¶17} Aside from the trial court‘s notation in the sentencing entry that it “considered all required factors of the law” including, specifically,
{¶18} First, the prosecutor recommended that the trial court sentence appellant to prison based on his “extensive criminal history.” Second, appellant‘s probation officer stated that appellant violated the terms of his community control sanctions in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-13-572694-A on three occasions: (1) he was discharged from the CBCF program, (2) he tested positive for marijuana, and (3) he tested positive for marijuana and alcohol. In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-13-572694-A, appellant pled guilty to having weapons while under disability in violation of
{¶19} Third, defense counsel stated that appellant “needs a lot of work to get himself to a place where he is a productive member of society.” Counsel stated that appellant is “very bright.” Counsel stated that appellant‘s parents had extensive criminal records and, as a result, he essentially “was on his own[.]” Counsel stated that appellant has an alcohol and drug problem and that the TASC assessment revealed alcohol,
{¶20} Fourth, appellant acknowledged that he has a problem with alcohol and drugs. Furthermore, he acknowledged that he has an anger management problem, and stated that his anger problem is exacerbated when he consumes alcohol. Appellant stated that his anger problem is entirely drug- or alcohol-related.
{¶21} The trial court acknowledged that it had previously given appellant “two shots at CBCF.” The trial court stated that it reviewed the PSI and that appellant appeared to be “out of control” when he committed the offenses. The trial court noted that appellant‘s conduct — drawing a loaded firearm in the presence of children and other family members — created a “dangerous situation.” Furthermore, the trial court emphasized that at the time that appellant committed the offenses, he was on probation for having weapons while under disability. The trial court stated that appellant appeared to have “a lot of anger management problems.”
{¶22} In imposing appellant‘s sentence, the trial court stated that it sympathized with appellant‘s situation. The trial court stated that it “look[ed] at the sentencing guidelines” and considered “the aspects of [the case] that make it more serious, [and] the aspects that make it less serious[.]” The trial court stated that it considered appellant‘s
{¶23} After reviewing the record, we cannot say that the trial court‘s sentence is clearly and convincingly not supported by the record. Before imposing appellant‘s sentence, the trial court considered the PSI report, appellant‘s criminal history, and the facts adduced at the sentencing hearing. The trial court sufficiently set forth its findings in the record for the sentence it imposed.
{¶24} We further find no merit to appellant‘s argument that the trial court failed to consider the relevant statutory factors under
{¶25} Accordingly, appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶26} The trial court‘s sentences for aggravated menacing, domestic violence, having weapons while under disability, and drug possession were within the statutory range. The trial court‘s sentencing journal entry states, “[t]he court considered all required factors of the law. The court finds that prison is consistent with the purpose of
{¶27} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that 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 common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR