Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2012 CR 241. Judgment: Affirmed.
Thomas L Sartini, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt, Assistant Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse, (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Gregory A. Price, (For Defendant-Appellant).
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.
(¶1} Appellant, Donna Rea, appeals from her convictions on three counts of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs ("illegal assembly"), in violation of R.C. 2925.041(A), felonies of the third degree.
(¶2} All three counts allege appellant assembled or possessed chemicals for the manufacture of methamphetamine. Count 1 alleges the infraction occurred on or between October 28, 2011 and November 4, 2011; Count 2 alleges a time frame on or between November 5, 2011 and November 5, 2011; and Count 3 on or between November 23, 2011 and December 7, 2011.
(¶3} On April 26, 2012, the Ashtabula County Grand Jury indicted appellant on 11 counts of Illegal assembly. On June 14, 2012, appellant entered a guilty plea on the first three counts of the illegal assembly charges in exchange for dropping the remaining counts. Appellant was sentenced to 36 months on each count, to be served concurrently.
(¶4} Appellant raises the following three assignments of error for our review:
(¶5} " The trial courts committed reversible error when they found that a third degree felony carries a presumption of prison.
(¶6} "[2.] Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when her trial counsel failed to correct the trial court's conclusion that a third degree felony carries a presumption of prison.
(¶7} " The trial court committed reversible error when it failed to merge the three charges of illegal possession of chemicals."
(¶8} The arguments under appellant's first and second assignments of error have been fully addressed in our opinion in Case No. 2012-A-0044. Therefore, we will not repeat them here. They are without merit as decided.
(¶9} Under appellant's third assignment of error, she contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to merge the three charges of illegal possession because the three counts for which she was convicted demonstrate a continuing course of conduct, meaning that essentially, appellant was convicted of multiple charges for one continuing offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Appellant argues that the trial court ...