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. Lewis

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

December 21, 2017

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
RAYSHAWN LEWIS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

         Criminal 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

          BEFORE Blackmon, J., Kilbane, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE.

         {¶1} 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.

         {¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow.

         {¶3} 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 Lewis appeals.

         Felony Sentencing Standard of Review

         {¶4} 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 N.E.3d 1231.

         {¶5} 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.

         {¶6} 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, and ...


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.