STATE OF OHIO v. DOUGLAS LYNN STEVENS
Case No. 2017CA00024
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
November 20, 2017
[Cite as State v. Stevens, 2017-Ohio-8692.]
Hоn. John W. Wise, P.J., Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J., Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016 CR 1606; JUDGMENT: Affirmed
For Plaintiff-Appellee
JOHN D. FERRERO
Prosecuting Attorney
By: RONALD MARK CALDWELL
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Appellate Section
110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
For Defendant-Appellant
JEFFREY R. JAKMIDES
325 East Main Street
Alliance, Ohio 44601
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Douglas Lynn Stevens appeals his sentence from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On August 30, 2016, the Stark County Grand Jury indicted appellant on one count of illegal manufacture of drugs in violation of
{¶3} Thereafter, on January 11, 2017, appellant withdrew his former plea of not guilty and entered a plea of no contest1 to all of the charges. The trial court found appellant guilty. At the January 17, 2017 sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated that it had considered defense counsel‘s arguments that mandatory minimum prison sentences were unconstitutional, but noted that it did not have discretion because “[t]he lеgislature has not allowed the judges in the State of Ohio complete discretion in their sentencing.” Transcript at 6. The trial court also considered aрpellant‘s argument that the mandatory
{¶4} As memorialized in a Judgment Entry filеd on January 20, 2017, appellant was then sentenced to two mandatory minimum eight year sentences for illegal manufacture of drugs and illegal cultivation of marijuana, two mandatory minimum sentences of five years for possession of marijuana and trafficking in marijuana and a sentence of three years for illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served concurrently, for an aggregate prison sentence of eight years.
{¶5} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error on appeal:
{¶6} THE MANDATORY MINIMUM TERMS OF INCARCERATION PURSUANT TO
I
{¶7} Appellant, in his sole assignment of error, challenges his sentence. Appellant argues that his mandatory minimum terms of incarceration are unconstitutional “because they сonstitute cruel and unusual punishment as they are so disproportionate to the offense and shocking to the sense of justice in the community.” We disagree.
{¶8} The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits excessive sanctions and provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
{¶9} “The Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence. Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime.” State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368, 372, 1999-Ohio-113, 715 N.E.2d 167, quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991), (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and in judgment). Our proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, “including (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the рenalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” State v. Morin, 5th Dist. Fairfield No.2008–CA–10, 2008–Ohio–6707, ¶ 69, citing Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290–292, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). It is well established that sentences do not violate these constitutional provisions against cruel and unusual punishment unless the sentences are so grossly disproportionate to the offenses as to shock the sense of justice in the community. State v. Chaffin, 30 Ohio St .2d 13, 282 N.E.2d 46 (1972), syllabus.
{¶11} The trial court, in the case sub judice, cited to State v. Campa, 1st Dist. No. C-010254, 2002-Ohio-1932 at the sentencing hearing. In Campa, after the appellant was convicted of trafficking in marijuana, the trial court imposed the mandatory maximum sentence of eight year‘s incarceratiоn for a drug conviction involving over twenty thousand grams of marijuana. On appeal, the appellant argued, in part, in his final assignment of error that that the imposition of a mandatory eight-year term of incarceration pursuant to
This same issue has been addressed by the Eleventh District Court of Appeals in State v. Powell (Dec. 31, 1998), Lake App. No. 97–L-253, unreported, appeal not allowed (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 1477, 709 N.E.2d 849. We agree that as
R.C. 2925.11(C)(3) sets forth a reasonable progression of harshеr sentences for possession of a larger quantities of marijuana, and the mandatory eight-year sentence is not disproportionate to othеr crimes of similar stature, it does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Moreover, the General Assembly has the authority to definecriminal conduct and to determine the appropriate punishment. See State v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560, 664 N.E.2d 926, 928–929. Mandatory sentencing laws enacted pursuant to this authority do not usurp the judiciary‘s power to detеrmine the sentence of individual offenders.
{¶12} In State v. Rosado, 8th Dist. No. 88504, 2007-Ohio-2782, the court addressed whether or not imposition of the mandatory ten year term of imprisonment for a major drug оffender constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The court, in holding that the sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, stated, in relevant part, as follows at paragraph 14.
There can be no serious contention, then, that a sentence which is not otherwise cruel and unusual becomes so simply becаuse it is ‘mandatory.” Harmelin v. Michigan (1991), 501 U.S. 957, 995. A punishment is cruel and unusual only if it is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the community‘s sense of justice. State v. Chaffin (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 13, paragraph three of the syllabus. A ten-year term of imprisonment for possession of more than one hundred grams of crack cocaine is not disproportionate to the sentences imposed for crimes of similar stature. Cf. State v. Conner, Cuyahoga App. No. 84073, 2005-Ohio-1971, ¶ 61. Therefore, the mandatory ten-year term of imprisonment is not cruel and unusual. Accordingly, we оverrule the sixth and seventh supplemental assignments of error.
{¶13} Based on the foregoing, we find that appellant‘s sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. As noted by appellee, “Ohio appellate courts
{¶14} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶15} Accordingly, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Baldwin, J.
John Wise, P.J. and
Earle Wise, J. concur.