Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case No. CR-15-598751-A
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Allison S.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor Ronni Ducoff Assistant County Prosecutor
BEFORE: Kilbane, P.J., E.T. Gallagher, J., and Stewart, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE
Defendant-appellant, Ronald L. Perry ("Perry"),
appeals from his sentence for kidnapping and gross sexual
imposition. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In August 2015, Lakewood police arrested Perry, after his
friend's daughter, M.D., reported to the Lakewood Police
Department that Perry had sexually abused her on multiple
occasions when he spent the night at her family's home.
She alleged that this sexual abuse occurred over a five-year
period - from the time she was seven until she was twelve
Perry was charged in a 23-count indictment as a result of
these allegations. He was charged with five counts of rape;
ten counts of kidnapping, each with a sexual motivation
specification; and eight counts of gross sexual imposition
("GSI"). Pursuant to a plea agreement with the
state of Ohio, Perry pled guilty to seven counts of
kidnapping, each with a sexual motivation specification, and
eight counts of GSI. As a condition of the plea agreement,
Perry agreed that none of the counts to which he pled guilty
were allied offenses of similar import and that there would
be no merger for purposes of sentencing.
At Perry's plea hearing, the trial court advised him of
his rights and informed him of the maximum sentence it could
impose for each of the offenses to which he intended to plea.
The court also advised Perry of his sex offender
classification and registration requirements as well as
The state indicated that it would be satisfied with a maximum
period of 40 years of imprisonment. Perry's defense
counsel advised the trial court that Perry and the state had
agreed to a 40-year maximum term of imprisonment as part of
their plea negotiations in light of the possible 117-year
consecutive, maximum sentence Perry faced for the kidnapping
and GSI counts. The trial court, in confirming its
understanding of the plea agreement, asked:
THE COURT: But is this an agreed sentence by and between?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No.
[STATE]: It's agreed by the State, by the defense that
that is the cap; it's 40 years.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: It's just a cap. It's not an
agreed sentence it's just when we were negotiating -
THE COURT: Well, see that's what I misunderstood because
I understood that the State was saying that it was okay, the
maximum of 40 years. But as we all know, as the sentencing
judge I could go beyond 40 years. That's what I need to
know; is this plea being made with the understanding that the
- it's expected the Court will not exceed what the
[state] said is okay?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: My understanding is that, yes, the maximum
given on however you choose. You could choose to run them all
concurrently. And we're not thinking even of that number,
but if you were inclined to do more you are to go no more
than that; that is the cap. Because in reaching this there is
a lot of exposure to a lot of - many years that could
effectively exceed that, so when we_
THE COURT: But see, I see that as an agreement whereby the
Court is bound by a 40-year maximum penalty.
[STATE]: That is an agreement. I believe that that is what
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes.
trial court further explained that it was not bound by the
parties' agreement of a 40-year maximum sentence. Perry
indicated that he understood the plea and made this plea
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The trial court
accepted his plea, ordered a ...