Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case No. CR-17-616848-A
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Mark A. Stanton Cuyahoga County
Public Defender BY: Jeffrey Gamso Assistant Public Defender.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor BY: Holly Welsh Assistant Prosecuting
BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, A.J., Kilbane, J., and McCormack, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
A. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.
Defendant-appellant Anthony Freeman appeals his convictions
for promoting prostitution and failure to provide notice of
change of address entered in the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas. Freeman also appeals the denial of his motion
to withdraw his guilty pleas. We affirm.
and Procedural Background
In 2017 Freeman was charged with two counts of promoting
prostitution, failure to provide notice of change of address,
drug trafficking and drug possession. The case proceeded to a
plea hearing where appellant plead guilty to one count of
promoting prostitution and failure to provide notice of
change of address. The remaining counts were nolled.
At sentencing, the trial court imposed 18-month prison terms
on both counts and ordered the counts to be served
consecutively. After the trial court informed Freeman of his
sentence he stated:
This is not what I really agreed to. Is it possible that I
can take back my plea? I want to take this all the way to
trial. It's not what I did. That is not what I did.
The trial court informed Freeman that he could not withdraw
his plea because sentencing had already taken place. Freeman
then asserted that he had asked his attorney how much prison
time he would be sentenced to and if he could take back his
plea prior to sentencing. Freeman claimed that his attorney
would not tell him. Freeman's attorney stated that he did
not know what the court's sentencing decision would be
prior to sentencing and the trial court agreed, explaining
that the court had not decided upon a sentence until after
hearing from the parties during the sentencing hearing. The
trial court also noted that Freeman had failed to raise the
issue of retracting his plea prior to the sentencing hearing.
The trial court denied Freeman's motion to vacate his
Consideration of R.C. 2929.12 Factors
In his first assignment of error, Freeman argues that the
trial court failed to consider the seriousness and recidivism
factors in R.C. 2929.12 when imposing his sentences.
A sentence is contrary to law if the sentence falls outside
the statutory range for the particular degree of offense or
the trial court failed to consider the purposes and
principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and
the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C.
2929.12. State v. Hinton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
102710, 2015-Ohi ...