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. Ammons

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

May 9, 2018

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
JONNELL AMMONS Appellant

          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nos. CR 16 06 1813, CR 16 07 2316

          DENISE FERGUSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          LYNNE S. CALLAHAN JUDGE.

         {¶1} Appellant, Jonnell Ammons, appeals his sentences from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} Mr. Ammons pleaded guilty to one count of failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer. In a separate case, he pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs, one count of aggravated possession of drugs, and a criminal forfeiture specification for both counts. The trial court found him guilty of all of the offenses. At a joint sentencing hearing, it sentenced him to two years imprisonment on the failure to comply count, a year and a half imprisonment on the trafficking count, and one year imprisonment on the possession count. It ordered his sentences on the drug offenses to run concurrent with each other but consecutive to his sentence for failure to comply for a total term of three and a half years. Mr. Ammons has appealed his sentences, assigning two errors.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

         THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT SENTENCED DEFENDANT TO CONSECUTIVE TERMS WITHOUT STRICTLY COMPLYING WITH R.C. 2929.14(C).

         {¶3} Mr. Ammons argues that the trial court failed to make the findings required to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). That section provides that, "[i]f multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, " the sentencing court may require the offender to serve the terms consecutively "if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public[.]" R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The court must also find "any" of the following:

(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under postrelease control for a prior offense.
(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender's conduct.
(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public ...

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.