STATE OF OHIO v. JAMES UNDERWOOD
No. 106597
Cоurt of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
January 10, 2019
2019-Ohio-67
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Boyle, P.J., and Keough, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 10, 2019
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O‘Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Khalilah A. Lawson Assistant Prоsecuting Attorney Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Appellant James Underwood seeks to challenge the sentence imposed by the trial court in each of the six underlying felony cases. Upon review, we affirm.
{¶2} Appellant entered a plea pursuant to a plea agreement involving six cases that proceeded together to sentencing, to wit: Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-16-605940-B, CR-16-608270-A, CR-16-608459-A, CR-16-608959-B, CR-16-608977-B, and CR-16-609456-B. Initially, a notice of appeal was filed in one of those cases, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-16-608977-B. Appellant was granted leave to file a delayed appeal in the other cases, which were sua sponte consolidated herein for purposes of appeal.1
{¶3} The record reflects that the state and appellant reached a plea agreement involving the six cases. At a hearing held on January 19, 2017, the assistant prosecutor outlined the plea agreement on the record. Pursuant tо the plea agreement, appellant agreed to plead guilty to a number of felony offenses in the six cases, most of which included a firearm specification, with the remaining counts being nolled.
{¶4} Before accepting appellant‘s guilty pleas, the trial court engaged in a
{¶5} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on March 2, 2017. The following sentences were imposed in each case:
- Case No. CR-16-605940-B: attempted grand theft, a felony of the fourth degree — 12 months.
- CR-16-608270-A: having weapons while under disability, a felony of the third degree, with forfeiture specification(s) — 24 months.
- CR-16-608459-A: aggravated robbery, a felony of the first degree with a three-year firearm specification — 8 years plus 3 years on
the firearm specification; and having weapons while under disability, a felony of the third degree — 24 months concurrent; total of 11 years. - CR-16-608959-B: aggravated robbery, a felony of the first degree, with a three-year firearm specification; felonious assault, a felony of the second degree, with a three-year firearm specification; and aggravated burglary, a felony of the first degree, with a three-year firearm specification. On each base count — 8 years concurrent, plus 3 years on each of thе three firearm specifications (run consecutive for 9 years on the firearm specifications); total of 17 years.
- CR-16-608977-B: aggravated robbery, a felony of the first degree, with a three-year firearm specification — 8 years рlus 3 years on the firearm specification; total of 11 years.2
- CR-16-609456-B: two counts of aggravated robbery involving different victims, felonies of the first degree, each with a one-year firearm specification. On each base count, 8 years concurrent, plus 1 year on each of the two firearm specifications (run consecutive for 2 years on the firearm specifications); total of 10 years.
{¶6} The court imposed a prison sentence in each сase, with the base count(s) run concurrent within and between cases, and the firearm specification(s), which were to be served prior to and consecutive to the base count, run consecutive within and between cases. Thе total aggregate term of imprisonment imposed for all six cases was 25 years — 8 years total on base
Legal Analysis
{¶7} Although the state argues that there was an agreed sentence that is not subject to review pursuant to
{¶8} We further observe that we are not permitted to consider the sentences for each offense together as a whole because the “‘sentencing package’ doctrine, by which federal courts may consider multiple offenses as a whole and impose an overarching sentence, is not applicable in Ohio‘s state courts.” State v. Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214, 2018-Ohio-813, 103 N.E.3d 800, ¶ 8, citing State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 10.
{¶9} Under his sole assignment of errоr, appellant claims that the record fails to clearly and convincingly support the imposition of more than the minimum sentence. He claims that the imposition of more than the minimum sentence was not supported under
{¶11} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “‘[t]rial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentence.‘” Emphasis added. State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-2696, 69 N.E.3d 627, ¶ 34, quoting State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, paragraph seven of the syllabus. Appellate courts are to afford deference to a trial court‘s broad discretion in making sentencing decisions. State v. Rahab, 150 Ohio St.3d 152, 2017-Ohio-1401, 80 N.E.3d 431, ¶ 10. Although some sentences do not require the findings that
{¶12} The applicable version of
{¶13} Pursuant to
{¶14} Although the trial court must consider the purposes and principles of sentencing as well as the factors in
{¶15} Here, appellant complains that the trial court gave no explanation for imposing more than the minimum sentence. However, the trial court was not required to make any
{¶16} Appellant fails to demonstrate that the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
{¶17} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated it had reviewed the presentence investigation report. Also, a psychiatric evaluation had been conducted. The trial court heard from defense counsel, the assistant prosecutor, and appellant. Defense counsel presented mitigating factors and acknowledged that a number of the cases involved the use of a firearm, the nature of the cases involved, and the psychological scarring to the victims. The assistant prosecutor indicated the victims were “very traumatized” by appellant‘s actions. Appellant apоlogized for his actions. Appellant‘s mother and the mother of one of his children also addressed the court. Prior to imposing sentence, the trial court stated that it had considered “the purposes and principles set forth in felony sentencing[.]” The sentencing journal entries also state that “the court considered all required factors of the law. The court finds that prison is consistent with the purpose of
{¶18} Appellant has failed to demonstrate by cleаr and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentences imposed under the relevant statutes, or that his sentences were contrary to law. We overrule appellant‘s sole assignment of errоr.
{¶19} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR