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. Scarbrough

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

May 10, 2018

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Marlon Scarbrough, Defendant-Appellant.

          APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas No. 91CR-1626

          On Brief: Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sheryl L. Prichard, for appellee.

          On Brief: Marlon Scarbrough, pro se.

          DECISION

          BRUNNER, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Marlon Scarbrough, appeals an entry filed by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on May 1, 2017 denying Scarbrough's motion for resentencing and related motions. Because we find that Scarbrough was properly and lawfully sentenced, we overrule his assignment of error and affirm.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} On March 21, 1991, a Franklin County Grand Jury indicted Scarbrough for six counts of aggravated murder (arising from the murders of three persons), three counts of aggravated robbery (with respect to the three murdered persons), and one count of felonious assault (with respect to a fourth person). (Mar. 21, 1991, Indictment.) All counts included firearm specifications. Id.

         {¶ 3} On April 22, 1992, in keeping with a plea agreement, Scarbrough pled guilty to all counts of the indictment. (Apr. 24, 1992 Jgmt Entry at 1; Apr. 24, 1992 Plea Agreement.) According to the plea agreement, each pair of aggravated murder charges relating to each victim would merge for purposes of sentencing and Scarbrough would be sentenced on three counts of aggravated murder, one for each victim. (Apr. 24, 1992 Plea Agreement at ¶ 5.) The plea agreement also provided that Scarbrough would be sentenced to concurrent terms of 20 years to life on each of the merged aggravated murder charges, to be served concurrently with whatever sentence the court chose to impose on the other offenses. Id. at ¶ 6-8. The parties agreed that all the firearm specifications would merge and that Scarbrough would serve one mandatory three-year sentence for the firearm specification consecutively to the aggravated murder sentences. Id. at ¶ 9. The plea agreement was expressly contingent on the trial court imposing the total sentence as set forth in the plea agreement and provided that the guilty plea would be automatically withdrawn in the event the trial court did not sentence as the parties contemplated in the agreement. Id. at ¶ 11.

         {¶ 4} In its judgment entry, the trial court sentenced Scarbrough as follows:

Life imprisonment [] with parole eligibility after Twenty (20) full years on Counts 1-6 [aggravated murders], Counts 1 and 4 to merge, Counts 2 and 5 to merge and Counts 3 and 6 to merge, to run concurrent to each other; not less than Ten (10) Years of Actual Incarceration nor more than Twenty Five (25) Years on Counts 7, 8 and 9 [aggravated robberies], to run concurrent to each other; not less than Eight (8) Years of Actual Incarceration nor more than Fifteen (15) Years on Count 10 [felonious assault], to run concurrent. * * * Defendant shall further serve an additional Three (3) Years Actual Incarceration for the Use of Firearm which shall be merged into one Specification and only be imposed once and shall be served prior to and consecutive to all sentences in this case.

(Apr. 24, 1992 Jgmt. Entry at 2.)

         {¶ 5} Just shy of 25 years after his original sentencing, on March 8, 2017, Scarbrough filed a motion for resentencing arguing that the trial court sentenced him on six counts of aggravated murder, that this was error because there were only three deaths, and that the error rendered his sentence void with the result that he must now be resentenced. (Mar. 8, 2017 Mot. for Sentencing.) Scarbrough supplemented that motion and requested a hearing in two filings on March 20. (Mar. 20, 2017 Mot. for Sentencing; Mar. 20, 2017 Mot. for Hearing.) The State responded in opposition on March 21, and Scarbrough replied in support on April 5. (Mar. 21, 2017 Memo. in Opp.; Apr. 5, 2017 Reply Memo.) In an entry on May 1, 2017, the trial court denied Scarbrough's motions without specifically stating reasons for the denial. (May 1, 2017 Entry.)

{¶ 6} Scarbrough now appeals.

         II. ...


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.