Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case Nos. CR-15-598262-A, CR-15-598310-A, and
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Thomas A.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Blaise D. Thomas Assistant Prosecuting
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Keough, P.J., and Stewart, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
Appellant Anthony Grant appeals the sentence imposed in three
underlying cases, Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-15-598262-A,
CR-15-598310-A, and CR-15-599943-A, as well as the imposition
of court costs. Upon review, we affirm.
Appellant was indicted and charged on multiple counts in each
of the three underlying cases. He ultimately entered a plea
agreement with the state and pleaded guilty to the following
charges: in CR-15-598262-A, involuntary manslaughter in
violation of R.C. 2903.03 with a three-year firearm
specification; in CR-15-598310-A, attempted aggravated
robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01with a one-year firearm
specification; and in CR-15-599943-A, to the indictment as
charged, which included two counts of having weapons while
under disability and one count of carrying a concealed
weapon, each with a forfeiture of weapon specification.
With regard to the first two cases, CR-15-598262-A and
CR-15-598310-A, there was an agreement to a sentencing range
for the two offenses in the aggregate to a term of between 6
and 20 years, which is down from the maximum of up to 26
years. There was no agreement to a sentence in
CR-15-599943-A, which was to be in addition to the other two
At sentencing, the trial court indicated it had reviewed the
presentence investigation report and appellant's
sentencing memorandum. The trial court heard from defense
counsel, appellant, persons on appellant's behalf,
members of the victims' families, and the assistant
prosecutor. The trial court indicated it had considered all
the information presented, all the principles and purposes of
felony sentencing, and the appropriate recidivism and
seriousness factors. The trial court reviewed appellant's
criminal history, including his juvenile record. Further, the
trial court considered the plea agreement and made the
requisite findings for consecutive sentences.
The trial court sentenced appellant as follows.
In CR-15-598262-A, to eight years in prison for involuntary
manslaughter, plus three years on the firearm specification
to run prior to and consecutive with the eight-year sentence,
for a total of 11 years.
In CR-15-598310-A, to eight years in prison for attempted
aggravated robbery, plus one year on the firearm
specification to run prior to and consecutive with the
eight-year sentence, for a total of nine years.
In CR-15-599943-A, to 18 months in prison on each of the
three counts, to run concurrent to each other.
The trial court ordered the sentences in CR-15-598262-A and
CR-15-598310-A to run consecutive to each other for an
aggregate sentence of 20 years. The cases were also run
consecutive with CR-15-599943-A, for a total of 21 and
one-half years. The court imposed postrelease control and
also found appellant responsible for court costs.
Appellant timely filed this appeal.
2953.08(D)(1) Reviewability - CR-15-598262-A and
Before reaching the assignments of error, we must first
determine the reviewability of the sentence imposed in two of
the underlying cases, CR-15-598262-A and CR-15-598310-A. In
these two cases, there was an agreement to an aggregate
sentence of 6 to 20 years, which is below the statutory
maximum of 26 years. The trial court imposed an aggregate
sentence of 20 years.
R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) limits our ability to review an agreed
sentence. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) states:
A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review
under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has
been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution
in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.
The initial question we must answer is whether an agreement
to a sentencing range, as opposed to a specific term of
incarceration, is a jointly recommended sentence for purposes
of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).
Recommended Sentencing Range
Examining some basic realities from our current criminal
justice system helps resolve the above question.
As the number of trials has reduced over the past decade,
criminal practitioners on both sides have increasingly turned
their focus to sentencing proceedings. The uncertainty over
what sentence a particular offender might receive has created
a negotiation process involving sentencing that now ...