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. Anthony

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

May 24, 2018

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
CHARLES F. ANTHONY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-13-576392-A

          FOR APPELLANT Charles F. Anthony, pro se.

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: Andrew J. Santoli Assistant County Prosecutor.

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

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J.

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant Charles F. Anthony ("Anthony") appeals from his resentencing, following a remand from this court. He assigns the following errors for our review:

I. [Anthony's] constitutional and due process rights were violated when the trial court accepted [Anthony's] guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter despite the elements of the charge not being supported by the facts of the case herein.
II. [Anthony] asserts that his sentence is contrary to law because [Anthony's] sentence under RVO specification [was imposed] without making the requisite findings. The record herein does not establish the criteria set forth in R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a) or (b).
III. The trial court erred by using factual information as factors pursuant to R.C. 2929.12, seriousness and recidivism factors to determine [Anthony's] length of sentence which resulted in a disproportionate sentence in violation of R.C. 2929.11(B) therefore making [Anthony's] sentence contrary to law.
IV. The trial court's imposition of an eleven-year sentence was unreasonable, disproportionate and inconsistent with sentences imposed upon all [Anthony's prior sentences] for the identical offenses over the last five years, in violation of R.C. 2929.11(B), as well as the due process, equal protection and Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
V. The trial court erred when it failed to follow the remand instructions of the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County in the case of State v. Anthony, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104497, [2017-Ohio-2756].

         {¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm. The apposite facts follow.

         {¶3} On August 14, 2013, Anthony was indicted for aggravated murder, murder, and two counts of felonious assault. All counts carried notice of prior conviction and repeat violent offender ("RVO") specifications. In November 2013, Anthony pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and one count of felonious assault with both specifications, and the remaining counts were nolled. See State v. Anthony, 2015-Ohio-2267, 37 N.E.3d 751 (8th Dist.), discretionary appeal not allowed, 143 Ohio St.3d 1500, 2015-Ohio-4468, 39 N.E.3d 1271 ("Anthony I"). The trial court sentenced Anthony to 11 years for involuntary manslaughter, consecutive to two years for felonious assault. Anthony appealed, arguing that the guilty plea was not properly entered, the convictions should have merged for sentencing, and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. This court held that the trial court erred when it failed to merge his convictions, and rejected the other claims. We vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing in order for the state to elect a single offense for sentencing. Id.

         {¶4} During the resentencing, "'the trial court thought that the remand was because of the consecutive nature of [the sentence].' Consequently, the court erroneously reimposed its sentence, with the counts being served concurrently as opposed to consecutively." State v. Anthony, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104497, 2017-Ohio-2756, ¶ 10 ("Anthony II"). Therefore, the Anthony II court vacated the sentence and again remanded the matter for resentencing in order for the ...


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.