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. Freeman

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

June 14, 2018

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
ANTHONY FREEMAN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

          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 Attorney.

          BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, A.J., Kilbane, J., and McCormack, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.

         {¶1} 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.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         {¶2} 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.

         {¶3} 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.

         {¶4} 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.

         {¶5} The trial court denied Freeman's motion to vacate his plea.

         Law and Analysis

         I. Consideration of R.C. 2929.12 Factors

         {¶6} 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.

         {¶7} 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 ...


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.