State v. LewisState v. Lewis
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-16-608977-A and CR-16-609456-A
Gregory Scott Robey
Robey & Robey
14402 Granger Road
Maple Heights, Ohio 44137
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O‘Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Khalilah A. Lawson
Eben McNair
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys
Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Rayshawn Lewis (“Lewis”) appeals his 13-year prison sentence in these two consolidated aggravated robbery cases and assign the following errors for our review:
I. The trial court erred when it imposed an 11 year prison term in CR-608977, and a 10 year prison term in CR-609456, which are not supported by the record.
II. The trial court abused its discretion when it imposed two 1 year firearm specifications in CR-609456.
{¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow.
{¶3} On February 6, 2017, Lewis pled guilty to three counts of aggravated robbery in violation of
Felony Sentencing Standard of Review
{¶4}
{¶5} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law “where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under
{¶6} Pursuant to
{¶7} Furthermore, in imposing a felony sentence, “the court shall consider the factors set forth in [
{¶8} In the case at hand, Lewis does not challenge that his sentence is within the statutory range or the imposition of postrelease control. Rather, he argues that “the trial court failed to properly consider a number of sentencing factors under the law.” Specifically, Lewis argues that the court did not properly consider the “more serious,” “less serious,” and “less likely” factors noted above. Therefore, according to Lewis, there is clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court‘s findings and his prison sentence.
{¶9} The state, on the other hand, argues that the trial court properly considered and weighed the applicable statutory factors and “came to the reasoned conclusion that given the extent of [Lewis‘s] reckless conduct, a sentence greater than the absolute minimum would satisfy the overriding purposes of a felony sentence.”
{¶10} At the sentencing hearing, the court noted that it reviewed Lewis‘s presentence investigation report, defense counsel‘s sentencing memorandum, and various letters from family members supporting Lewis. Additionally, defense counsel spoke on the record regarding mitigating factors, including that Lewis, who was 20 years old at the time he committed the offenses, “is a shy kid” who is more of a follower than a leader and is “susceptible to influence.” Defense counsel also stated that “but for [Lewis‘s] associations with a codefendant, this never would have happened.” Defense counsel argued that these factors do not excuse Lewis‘s conduct, but they “may put his
{¶11} The court heard statements on the record from Lewis‘s grandmother, father, and mother, all of whom said that Lewis was “a good kid” who “made a mistake.”
{¶12} The state argued at Lewis‘s sentencing hearing as follows: “At the time of these offenses conscious decisions were made to hold these victims at gunpoint, rob them at gunpoint. These were not matters of retaliation but innocent victims in this case that have to deal with the effects now.” The state also noted that the three counts of armed robbery related to three separate victims and occurred over a two-day span.
{¶13} The court noted on the record that Lewis “was the only one with a job” among the codefendants. The court then imposed Lewis‘s 13-year prison sentence. The sentencing journal entries state that the court “considered all required factors of the law * * * [and] the court found that prison is consistent with the purpose of
{¶14} Upon review, we find that Lewis‘s prison sentence for three counts of armed robbery is supported by evidence in the record. See State v. Tate, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104342, 2016-Ohio-8309, ¶ 12 (“An appellate court lacks the authority under
Multiple Firearm Specifications
If an offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to two or more felonies, if one or more of those felonies are * * * aggravated robbery * * * and if the offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to a [firearm] specification * * * the sentencing court shall impose on the offender the [statutory] prison term specified * * * for each of the two most serious specifications * * * and, in its discretion, also may impose [a] prison term * * * for any or all of the remaining specifications.
{¶16} This court has held that, under
{¶17} In the case at hand, Lewis argues that the court erred “when it imposed two 1 year firearm specifications on counts 1 & 2, in case number CR-609456,” because “the felonies that he pled guilty to were part of the same act and same transaction * * *.” We note here that Lewis is not appealing the imposition of the three-year firearm
{¶18} Upon review, we find that the court properly sentenced Lewis for multiple firearm specifications under
{¶19} Accordingly, Lewis‘s second and final assigned error is overruled.
{¶20} Sentence 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 be sent to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 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.
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR