State v. SharpState v. Sharp
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 110944
v. :
TROY SHARP, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 30, 2022
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-21-658554-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jonathan Block, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Mary Catherine Corrigan, for appellant.
MARY J. BOYLE, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Troy Sharp (“Sharp”) appeals the trial court’s imposition of the maximum sentence after Sharp pled guilty to felonious assault. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 3} On August 19, 2021, Sharp entered into a plea agreement with the state in which he pled guilty to an amended Count 2 — felonious assault with the 3-year firearm specification and forfeiture of his Glock 19, 9 mm handgun. Sharp agreed to no contact with the victim, restitution in an amount to be determined at sentencing, and a mandatory prison sentence, to which the victim consented. The remaining counts and specifications were dismissed. The trial court advised Sharp that he faced a mandatory 3 years for the firearm specification, to be served consecutively and prior to a minimum period of incarceration of 2-8 years on the underlying felonious assault; the felonious assault charge was subject to indefinite sentencing under the Reagan Tokes Law; and he faced a mandatory 3-year term of postrelease control. The trial court accepted Sharp’s guilty plea and ordered a presentence-investigation report.
{¶ 4} The matter proceeded to sentencing on September 29, 2021. Counsel for Sharp, Sharp, the assistant prosecutor, and the victim all addressed the court. Counsel for Sharp related that Sharp had been residing at the victim’s house and storing marijuana cultivation equipment and growing marijuana in the victim’s garage. Counsel added that Sharp was not a major drug user but had developed a passion for cultivating marijuana and graduated from the Cleveland School of
{¶ 5} Counsel stated that Sharp believed the anger and impulsiveness he experienced that day were attributable to medication he had been taking for mental health issues. Counsel noted that Sharp is 47 years old, has no criminal history, and had never acted this way in the past. Counsel stated that Sharp is a practicing Christian and felt remorse for his actions. Counsel pointed to a sentencing memo she filed for the purpose of mitigation, to which she attached a letter from Sharp, Sharp’s degrees in electrical engineering and from the Cleveland School of Cannabis, as well as six letters from family and friends who have known Sharp many years. Counsel also pointed to the moderate- and low-risk factors contained in the presentence-investigation report.
{¶ 6} Sharp then addressed the court. Sharp apologized and said he was not acting like himself on the day of the incident. He explained that he was prescribed Zoloft for anxiety, and its label merely warned that it might cause drowsiness and not to operate heavy machinery. He said he did not realize that the medication would cause a “psychotic episode,” adding that the medication also caused him to have violent thoughts following his arrest and that he even contemplated hurting a female corrections officer during his intake. He said that,
The assistant prosecutor next addressed the court, calling attention to several photographs depicting the scene of the shooting, which took place in front of the victim’s garage. The assistant prosecutor stated that Sharp already had the gun drawn as he approached the victim and asked him where his money was. The assistant prosecutor noted that the crime scene photos showed several bullet holes in the back of the garage, ricochets where bullets had been fired alongside the victim, and two bullet wounds from the shots that Sharp had fired at the victim. One photo showed a bullet wound in the victim’s left thigh, which neighbors “were attempting to tourniquet” to prevent blood loss. Another photo showed a bullet wound in the victim’s right leg, just above his knee.
The assistant prosecutor also called attention to Sharp’s own statements at the sentencing hearing, observing that Sharp appeared to be blaming the victim by alleging self-defense, which sounded neither “contrite” nor like Sharp took responsibility for the shooting. The assistant prosecutor pointed out that Sharp
The victim then addressed the court. The victim stated that the responding officer informed him that, before traveling to the victim’s house, Sharp told his girlfriend that he planned to hurt the victim. The victim stated that as a result of the shooting, he now has steel plates in his legs, he had to do physical therapy, and one of the gunshot wounds “ruined [his] leg.” The victim stated that his family owns a successful construction business, he has worked in construction his entire life, and his injuries keep him from doing this work. The assistant prosecutor added that one of the bullets shattered the victim’s shin bone, after which plates were inserted to aid healing, physical therapy was required for the victim to learn to walk again, and the victim now walks with a noticeable limp.
Sharp responded that he had not driven to the victim’s house; rather, he was driven there by a woman he knew. Sharp stated that he had no intention of harming the victim and was surprised to learn that this woman had reported his intention to the police. Sharp added that his “original plan was to shoot out [the victim’s] window to cost him the money” that Sharp believed the victim owed him.
{¶ 12} The trial court then sentenced Sharp to a prison term of 3 years on the firearm specification, to be served consecutively and prior to an indefinite term of 8-12 years on the underlying felonious assault under the Reagan Tokes Law. The trial court imposed a mandatory 3-year term of postrelease control and credited
Sharp now appeals, raising the following three assignments of error for review:
Assignment of Error I: The trial court’s sentence was contrary to law.
Assignment of Error II: The appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Assignment of Error III: The trial court erred by imposing an unconstitutional sentence pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act.
{¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Sharp contends that his sentence of “11-15 years” was contrary to law. Sharp argues that if the trial court had properly considered the purposes, principles, and factors of felony sentencing under
{¶ 15} The state argues that the trial court expressly stated on the record at sentencing and in its sentencing entry that it had considered the purposes, principles, and factors of felony sentencing under
{¶ 16} Appeal of a felony sentence is governed by
{¶ 17} When sentencing a defendant, the sentencing court must consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing under
{¶ 19}
{¶ 20} Although the sentencing court must consider the
{¶ 21} Sharp pled guilty to felonious assault, a second-degree felony, with a 3-year firearm specification and forfeiture of the Glock 19, 9 mm handgun he used to shoot the victim.
{¶ 22} The trial court imposed a 3-year term for Sharp’s use of a gun to commit the felonious assault, to be served consecutively and prior to a minimum term of 8 years and a maximum term of 12 years for the felonious assault. The negotiated plea agreement between the parties was conditioned on Sharp’s
{¶ 23} Sharp also contests whether the trial court considered the purposes, principles, and factors of felony sentencing under
{¶ 24} The record also reveals that the trial court considered the
{¶ 25} Sharp also maintained that he acted in self-defense,
{¶ 26} Sharp maintains that he showed remorse at his sentencing.
{¶ 27} Because Sharp’s sentence is within the statutory range and the trial court considered the statutory factors when imposing this sentence, we cannot say on this record that Sharp’s sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.
{¶ 28} Accordingly, we overrule Sharp’s first assignment of error.
{¶ 29} We address Sharp’s second and third assignments of error out of order because our resolution of the third assignment of error renders the second assignment of error moot. In his third assignment of error, Sharp argues that his sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law violates (1) the constitutional right to a trial by jury, (2) the separation-of-powers doctrine, and (3) due process. Our en banc decision in State v. Delvallie, 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.), overruled
{¶ 30} Therefore, Sharp’s second and third assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 31} Judgment is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from 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.
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR