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. Gonzalez

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

April 5, 2018

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
CARMELO GONZALEZ DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-16-612666-A

          Ruth R. Fischbein-Cohen ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

          Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, John Farlely Hirschauer Assistant County Prosecutor ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

          BEFORE: Jones, J., Blackmon, P.J., and Laster Mays, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          LARRY A. JONES, SR., JUDGE

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant Carmelo Gonzalez appeals his sentence, which was imposed after his plea to one count each of breaking and entering and vandalism. Both charges were fifth-degree felonies. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         {¶2} In January 2017, Gonzalez was charged in a four-count indictment as follows: two counts of breaking and entering, one count of theft, and one count of vandalism. The charges resulted after Gonzalez and his codefendant Marisol Gonzalez broke into a Tremont-area restaurant and stole three Apple ipads, a Samsung tablet, and two cash register draws containing approximately $400. The cash registers were physically "ripped out" of their location. The defendants' actions were captured on the restaurant's surveillance camera.

         {¶3} In May 2017, Gonzalez pled guilty to one count each of breaking and entering and vandalism; the remaining counts were nolled. Several days after his plea, Gonzalez was sentenced. Earlier that same day, Gonzalez was sentenced in an unrelated case, Cuyahoga County C.P. No. CR-16-614114.

         {¶4} At sentencing in this case, the trial court imposed a 12-month prison term on each of the two counts, to run concurrently. However, the court ordered the sentence in this case to run consecutively to the sentence on the other case. Gonzalez now appeals and raises the following assignments of error for our review:

I. It was error to sentence Carmelo Gonzalez to maximum and consecutive sentences.
II. It was error to separately sentence Carmelo Gonzalez.
III. It was error not to give Carmelo Gonzalez credit for time served.

         Maximum Sentence

         {¶5} In his first assignment of error, Gonzalez challenges the trial court's imposition of maximum, consecutive ...


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.