State v. LoganState v. Logan
BEFORE: Cooney, A.J., Blackmon, J., and Boyle, J.
RELEASED: April 9, 2009
JOURNALIZED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
1370 Ontario Street
Standard Building
Suite 2000
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Kevin R. Filiatraut
Assistant County Prosecutor
8th Floor, Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court‘s decision. See App.R. 22(B) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the cоurt pursuant to App.R. 22(C) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of thе court‘s decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court‘s announсement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(C). See, also, S.Ct. Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1).
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Demetreus Logan (“Logan“), appeals his five-year sentence on his failure-to-comply conviction. Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.
{¶ 2} In Oсtober 2007, Logan was charged with failure to comply with a police officer‘s order, drug trafficking, possession of criminal tools, аnd three counts of drug possession.1 Logan pled guilty to the first three offenses and one count of drug possession. The remaining chargеs were nolled. The trial court sentenced him to a total of six years in prison.
{¶ 3} Logan appeals, raising one assignment of error in which he argues that the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence for failure to comply. He claims that the trial court failеd to consider
Standard of Review
{¶ 4} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, the Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed our standard of review for felony sentences. The Kalish court, in a split decision, declared that in applying
{¶ 5} Appellate courts must first “examine the sentencing court‘s compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Id. at ¶4. If this first prong is satisfied, then we review the trial court‘s decision under an abuse-of-discretion standаrd. Id. at ¶4, 19.
Step One-Is the Sentence Contrary to Law?
{¶ 6} In the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence is contrary to law as required by
{¶ 7} As the Kalish court noted, post-Foster, “trial courts have full discretion to impоse a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings and give reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive or more than the minimum sentence.” Id. at ¶11; Foster, paragraph seven of the syllabus; State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, 846 N.E.2d 1, paragraph three of the syllabus. See, also, State v. Redding, Cuyahoga App. No. 90864, 2008-Ohio-5739; State v. Ali, Cuyahoga App. No. 90301, 2008-Ohio-4449; State v. McCarroll, Cuyahoga App. No. 89280, 2007-Ohio-6322; State
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9} “[A] court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The overriding purposes of fеlony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender. To achiеve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offеnder and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.”
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} The Kalish court also noted that
{¶ 12} Logan argues that the trial court failed to properly consider the factors in
{¶ 13} In the instant case, the trial court expressly stated that it considered the purposes of
Step Two–Abuse of Discretion
{¶ 14} Having satisfied step one, we next consider whether the trial court abused its discretion. Kalish at ¶4, 19. An abuse of discretion is “more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court‘s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Id. at ¶19, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d.
{¶ 15} A review of the record reveals that the trial court considered the statutory factors under
Sentence Proportionality
{¶ 16} Logan also argues that his sentence is contrary to law because the trial court failed to consider the issue of consistency and proportionality of his sentence to those imposed on similar offenders, thereby violating
{¶ 17} However, this court has previously held that in order to support a claim that a “sentence is disproportionate to sentencеs imposed upon other offenders, a defendant must raise this issue before the trial court and present some evidence, howеver minimal, in order to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal.” State v. Edwards, Cuyahoga App. No. 89191, 2007-Ohio-6068. See, also, Redding.
{¶ 19} Therefore, the sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 20} Accordingly, judgment is 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 сarry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remаnded 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.
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J., AND MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR