Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
Nos. CR-16-608977-A and CR-16-609456-A
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Gregory Scott Robey Robey & Robey
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Khalilah A. Lawson Eben McNair
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys
Blackmon, J., Kilbane, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE.
Rayshawn Lewis ("Lewis") appeals his 13-year prison
sentence in these two consolidated aggravated robbery cases
and assign the following errors for our review:
I. The trial court erred when it imposed an 11 year prison
term in CR-608977, and a 10 year prison term in CR-609456,
which are not supported by the record.
II. The trial court abused its discretion when it imposed two
1 year firearm specifications in CR-609456.
Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the
decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow.
On February 6, 2017, Lewis pled guilty to three counts of
aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), a
first-degree felony, one three-year firearm specification,
and two one-year firearm specifications. On March 2, 2017,
the court sentenced Lewis to eight years in prison for each
robbery, to run concurrently, plus five years in prison for
the gun specifications, to run consecutively, for an
aggregate prison term of 13 years. It is from this order that
Sentencing Standard of Review
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides, in part, that when reviewing
felony sentences, the appellate court's standard is not
whether the sentencing court abused its discretion; rather,
if this court "clearly and convincingly finds that (1)
"the record does not support the sentencing court's
findings under" R.C. Chapter 2929 or (2) "the
sentence is otherwise contrary to law, " then we may
conclude that the court erred in sentencing. See also
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59
A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law
"where the trial court considers the purposes and
principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 as well as the
seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12,
properly applies post-release control, and sentences a
defendant within the permissible statutory range."
State v. A.H., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98622,
2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10.
Pursuant to R.C. 2929.11(A), the two overriding purposes of
felony sentencing are "to protect the public from future
crime by the offender and others, " and "to punish
the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court
determines accomplish those purposes * * *."
Additionally, the sentence imposed shall be
"commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness
of the offender's conduct and its impact on the victim,