State of Ohio v. Khiry D. Woodmore
Court of Appeals No. L-20-1088
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
May 14, 2021
[Cite as State v. Woodmore, 2021-Ohio-1677.]
ZMUDA, P.J.
Trial Court No. CR0201902635
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alyssa Breyman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
*****
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appeal of the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas sentencing appellant, Khiry Woodmore, to a minimum term of 12 years and a maximum term of 16 years, 6 months in prison, following his
II. Background and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On September 17, 2019, appellant was indicted in Lucas County case No. CR0201902635 on one count of aggravated burglary in violation of
{¶ 3} On November 12, 2019, the trial court held an arraignment hearing and appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Appellant withdrew his not guilty plea on March 17, 2020, and entered a plea of guilty to one count of aggravated burglary with a firearm specification. In exchange for his guilty plea on that count, appellee, the state of Ohio, agreed to dismiss the remaining counts at sentencing and to recommend a total sentence cap of nine years in prison.
The Court: Do you understand that the State is making that recommendation as part of the plea agreement but that the court is not bound by that and it‘s free to deviate from that recommendation? I could go under that recommendation or I could go over that recommendation. Do you understand that?
Appellant: Yes, ma‘am.
The State: Your Honor, I apologize. The State‘s recommendation is a nine year total. That would include the three-year specification.
The Court: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. That was not necessarily clear in this. So that means the State is recommending that I impose six years on the aggravated burglary because you know for certain that you will get three years on the firearm specification. Do you understand that?
Appellant: Yes, ma‘am.
The Court: Okay. But the State is or excuse me, the court is free to deviate from that recommendation and I could go under that recommendation, and impose three, four, or five or I could go over that
recommendation and impose seven, eight, nine, ten, or eleven. Do you understand that?
Appellant: Yes, ma‘am.
Appellant, therefore, was advised that the aggravated burglary charge carried a prison term of 3 to 11 years and the firearm specification carried a mandatory consecutive prison term of 3 years.
{¶ 5} On March 31, 2020, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. At that hearing, defense counsel addressed the court regarding mitigation and asked for a sentence of less than nine years total. The state requested the court abide by its recommended sentence.
{¶ 6} Prior to imposing a sentence, the trial court discussed the seriousness of the crime, noting it was “one of the most serious ones this court has ever seen” and, based on information provided by appellant‘s codefendants, appellant was the main perpetrator. The trial court further noted that the elderly victim “was brutalized within inches of his life” so that appellant could take his property, and the victim “sustained serious psychological and physical harm as a result of this vicious attack including a traumatic brain hemorrhage.” The trial court also noted that appellant committed the offense while on active postrelease control, having been recently released from prison.
{¶ 7} After noting due consideration of the record, the victim impact statement, appellant‘s presentence investigation report, and after consideration and balancing of the principles and purposes of sentencing factors under
{¶ 8} On April 29, 2020, appellant filed a notice of appeal.3
III. Assignments of Error
{¶ 9} Appellant now challenges his sentence in a single assignment of error, as follows:
The trial court erred to the prejudice of Appellant by sentencing Appellant to a prison term that exceeded the State‘s sentencing recommended.
IV. Analysis
{¶ 10} Appellant challenges his prison sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence that exceeded the state‘s recommendation. In support, appellant
{¶ 11} A felony sentence is reviewed under
{¶ 12} “Put simply,
{¶ 13} Appellant argues, as proof of error in considering the factors under
{¶ 14} Here, the record clearly reflects that the trial court advised appellant that it was not bound by the state‘s recommendation. The record also reflects that, during the plea hearing, the trial court advised appellant at length regarding the applicable penalties. This discussion comprised five pages of the transcript. Appellant repeatedly affirmed to the court that he understood, and appellant‘s written plea agreement provided notice of the possible penalties. It stated, in relevant part:
I understand the MAXIMUM penalties COULD be: a maximum indefinite prison term of a minimum of 6 years and a maximum of 19 years and 6
months of which 3 years is mandatory, during which I am NOT eligible for judicial release or community control.
{¶ 15} In the instant case, the totality of the circumstances, including the plea colloquy and the signed plea agreement, demonstrate that appellant was aware of the potential maximum penalty he faced and that the trial court was not bound by the state‘s recommendation. Thus, the trial court did not err in imposing a sentence that exceeded the state‘s recommendation.
{¶ 16} Appellant‘s argument regarding proper consideration, by the trial court, of the directives of
{¶ 18} Accordingly, we do not consider whether the record supports the trial court‘s findings under
V. Conclusion
{¶ 19} For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J.
CONCUR.
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.