State v. SullensState v. Sullens
For Plaintiff-Appellee
RONALD L. WELCH Prosecuting Attorney Muskingum County, Ohio
TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Muskingum County, Ohio 27 North Fifth Street P.O. Box 189 Zanesville, Ohio 43701
For Defendant-Appellant
TODD W. BARSTOW 261 West Johnstown Road - Suite #204 Columbus, Ohio 43230
{1} Defendant-appellant Shawn Sullens appeals his 9-year sentence imposed by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, after he entered guilty pleas to one count of negligent assault, in violation of
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{2} On June 24, 2021, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on one count of negligent assault, in violation of
{3} The trial court scheduled the matter for jury trial on September 9, 2021. On the morning of trial, the prosecutor advised the trial court Appellant wished to withdraw his general plea of not guilty and enter pleas of guilty to Count 11 (negligent assault), Count 12 (tampering with evidence), Count 15 (possession of drugs - cocaine), Count 17 (possession of drugs - methamphetamine), Count 23 (possession of drugs - cocaine), and Count 24 (having weapons while under disability). The prosecutor further advised the trial court the parties agreed to a joint sentencing recommendation of six years imprisonment and stipulated to the judicial findings necessary for the imposition of consecutive sentences. In exchange for Appellant‘s guilty pleas, the state agreed to nolle the remaining counts of the Indictment. After conducting a
{4} Thereafter, the state provided the trial court with a recitation of the facts which led to the charges against Appellant.
{5} On June 8, 2021, officers were dispatched to Genesis Hospital in reference to a female who had been shot. The female was identified as Shelbie Mourer. Mourer told the officers she was at 1628-A Owens Street in Zanesville, when the shooting occurred, and had been shot in the foot. Officers executed a search warrant at the 1628-
{6} Officers observed blood, which appeared someone had tried to clean, on the floor of the bedroom where Mourer had told police she had been when she was shot. Appellant explained he was holding the gun and “messing with it” when he fired it from the living room through the closed bedroom door, striking Mourer.
{7} Appellant admitted he had trafficked drugs out of the home and the drugs found in the front bedroom belonged to him. Appellant indicated the gun he was holding when he shot Mourer was a High Point .9 millimeter, which he took to a house on Dryden after the shooting. Officers ultimately found that gun in a closet at the 1628-A Owens Street home.
{8} Appellant had three prior convictions for possession of drugs, fifth degree felonies, out of Franklin County.
{9} The trial court deferred sentencing upon completion of a presentence investigation. The trial court memorialized Appellant‘s convictions via Entry filed September 14, 2021. Appellant appeared before the trial court for sentencing on October 27, 2021. The trial court spoke to Appellant regarding his extensive criminal history, noting the number of times Appellant had been in possession of a weapon, knowing he was prohibited from doing so. The trial court proceeded to sentence Appellant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 years. The trial court memorialized Appellant‘s
{10} It is from this sentence Appellant appeals, raising as his sole assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY SENTENCING HIM IN CONTRAVENTION OF OHIO‘S SENTENCING STATUTES. (R. ENTRY, 10/27/21; T. SENTENCING HEARING).
{11} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant contends the trial court erred by imposing a sentence which was in contravention of Ohio‘s sentencing statutes. Specifically, Appellant asserts the trial court failed to properly consider the sentencing factors set forth in
{12} Pursuant to
{13} Recently, in State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, the Ohio Supreme Court held
{14} In Jones, the Supreme Court also confirmed
{15} Under established law, a “trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v. King, 2nd Dist. Clark App. Nos. 2012-CA-25, 2012-CA-26, 2013-Ohio-2021, 992 N.E.2d 491, 45.
{17} Based upon the foregoing, we find Appellant‘s sentence was not contrary to law.
{18} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{19} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, John, J. concur