Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case No. CR-13-576392-A
APPELLANT Charles F. Anthony, pro se.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: Andrew J. Santoli Assistant County
BEFORE: Blackmon, P.J., Laster Mays, J., and Celebrezze, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J.
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
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
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
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].
Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm. The
apposite facts follow.
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.
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 ...