State v. SawyerState v. Sawyer
OPINION
{¶ 1} Thе appellant, John Sawyer, appeals the October 14, 2003 judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Allen County, Ohio, sentencing him to two concurrent terms of imprisonment, totаling three years, for his two convictions of trafficking in cocaine.
{¶ 2} On May 15, 2003, Sawyer was indicted by the Allen County Grand Jury for two counts of trafficking in cocaine in violation of
The trial court committed an error of law by imposing morethan the minimum sentence. The trial court committed an error of law in its findingspursuant to
First Assignment of Error
{¶ 3} In his first assignment of error, Sawyer contends that the trial court erred by sentencing him to more than the minimum sentence for a third degree felony. Specifically, he asserts that the court failed to find that he was serving a prison term at the time of the offense, previously had served a prison term, or that the shortest term would demean the seriousness of the offense or would not adequately protect the public as required by
{¶ 4} Initially, we note that in reviewing the sentencing decision of a trial court, an appellate court must “review the factual findings of the trial court under
{¶ 5} In determining what sentence to impose upon a defendant, a trial court is “granted broad discretion in determining the most effective way to uphold” the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing: “to protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender.” State v. Avery (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 36, 50. However, trial courts are required “to make various findings before properly imрosing a felony sentence.” State v. Alberty (Mar. 28, 2000), 3rd Dist. No. 1-99-84, unreported, 2000 WL 327225. In fact, the trial court‘s findings under
{¶ 6} In the case sub judice, Sawyer was convicted of two third degree felonies. The Revised Code provides that an offender who commits a felony of the third degreе may be sentenced to one, two, three, four, or five years in prison.
(1) The offender was serving a prison term at the time of theoffense, or the offender previously had served a prison term. (2) The court finds on the record that the shortest prisonterm will demean the seriousnеss of the offender‘s conduct orwill not adequately protect the public from future crime by theoffender or others.
{¶ 7} Here, the pre-sentence investigation (“PSI“) revealed that Sawyer was not serving a prison term at the time of the offense nor had he previously served a prison term. Thus,
Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} Sawyer next asserts that the trial court erred in finding that his offenses were committed for hire or as part of an organized criminal activity. Thе Revised Code provides discretion to a trial court in determining “the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in section
{¶ 9} In Martinez, the court noted that “courts must determine on a case-by-case basis whether an offense is part of an organized criminal activity.” Id., citing State v. Obregon (Aug. 25, 2000), 6th Dist. No. S-99-042, unreported, 2000 WL 1205446; State v. Shryock (Aug. 1, 1997), 1st Dist. No. C-961111, unreported, 1997 WL 1008672 (the offender was not part of an organized criminal activity when he merely acted as a “look-out” for his criminal colleague). The Sixth District relied, in part, on the definition of “organized criminal activity” contained in R.C. Chapter 177, еntitled “Investigation and Prosecution of Organized Criminal Activity,” in order to determine whether Martinez committed his offenses as part of an organized criminal activity. Martinez, supra.
{¶ 10} Chaptеr 177‘s definition of organized criminal activity includes “any violation, combination of violations, or conspiracy to commit one or more violations of sectiоn
{¶ 11} In this case, Sawyer stated during his sentencing hearing, and the PSI reflected, that on two separate occasions, March 24, 2003, and April 2, 2003, Sawyer sold over twelve grams of powder cocaine in each transaction to a confidential informant (“CI“) for $550 per sale. Sawyer maintained that he was approached by the CI on several occasions, asking him to obtain some cocaine for the CI but that he refused. Finally, Sawyer consented, sold cocaine to the CI, and received drugs to feed his habit in return for selling cocaine to the CI. Based on this information, the trial court found that Sawyer committed these offenses for hire and as part of an organized criminal activity. In explaining this finding, the court stated: “I don‘t mean that you were hired by someone to do it, but that you did it for profit to yourself. Even if it was just to get drugs for yourself, it was also part of an organized criminal activity.” Given the amount of cocaine involved and the facts surrounding the purchases, including obtаining drugs for himself as part of the transaction, we agree with the reasoning of the Sixth District and conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that these offenses were committеd as part of an organized criminal activity. Thus, the second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 12} For these reasons, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Allen County, Ohio, is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part and cause rеmanded.
Cupp and Bryant, JJ., concur.