Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Mangus

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District

September 26, 2007

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
RYAN D. MANGUS Appellant

Appeal from Judgment Entered in the Court of Common Pleas County of Summit, Ohio Case No. CR 06 12 4364

APPEARANCES: STEPHEN C. LAWSON, Attorney at Law, for appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Donna J. Carr, Judge

This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:

{¶1} Appellant, Ryan Mangus, appeals his conviction and sentence out of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} On December 19, 2006, appellant was indicted on three counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), felonies of the first degree; three counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), felonies of the first degree; and three counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), felonies of the third degree. Appellant pled not guilty to the charges.

{¶3} On March 9, 2007, the matter came before the trial court for status. The State informed the trial court that appellant would be countermanding his former not guilty plea and entering a plea of guilty to all charges in the indictment. Both the State and defense counsel stipulated that appellant would be adjudicated a sexually oriented offender and that he should be sentenced to ten years in prison. Defense counsel asserted that he had discussed the terms of the negotiations with appellant at length and that appellant understood his constitutional rights and that he would be waiving those rights upon entering a guilty plea. Defense counsel further asserted that appellant understood all the possible penalties and the sexually oriented offender designation.

{¶4} The trial court engaged in colloquy with appellant. The trial court explained the charges and possible penalties, and appellant asserted his understanding. The trial court explained that by pleading guilty, appellant would be waiving his right to a trial, to require the State to prove his guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, to call and cross-examine witnesses, to testify in his own defense or to remain silent, and to appeal. Appellant asserted his understanding. The trial court explained that appellant would be sentenced to prison and subject to a mandatory period of post-release control. Appellant asserted his understanding. The trial court inquired whether appellant was satisfied with his representation by counsel. Appellant asserted his satisfaction and his desire to plead guilty to the charges. Whereupon, the trial court found that appellant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered his guilty plea. Appellant further executed a written plea of guilty to the charges.

{¶5} The trial court adjudicated appellant a sexually oriented offender and sentenced appellant to ten years in prison, pursuant to the parties' stipulations. Appellant timely appeals, raising two assignments of error for review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

"THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT IMPOSED THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE UPON THE APPELLANT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A SUMMARY SEX OFFENDER PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.