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. McKee

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum

June 18, 2018

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
LARRY L. MCKEE Defendant-Appellant

          Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2016-0307

          For Plaintiff-Appellee D. MICHAEL HADDOX Prosecuting Attorney GERALD V. ANDERSON II Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Muskingum County, Ohio

          For Defendant-Appellant ERIC J. ALLEN The Law Office of Eric J. Allen, Ltd.

          JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

          OPINION

          BALDWIN, JUDGE

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant Larry L. McKee appeals his sentence issued by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

         STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

         {¶2} On September 28, 2016, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted appellant on four counts of gross sexual imposition in violation or R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), felonies of the third degree, and one count of compelling prostitution in violation of R. C. 2907.21(A)(3)(a), also a felony of the third degree. At his arraignment on October 5, 2016, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges.

         {¶3} Thereafter, on November 9, 2016, appellant withdrew his former not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty to all four of the charges of gross sexual imposition. The charge of compelling prostitution was dismissed upon appellee's motion as memorialized in an Order filed on June 20, 2017. Pursuant to an Entry filed on June 20, 2017, appellant was sentenced to sixty (60) months on each count of gross sexual imposition. The trial court ordered that Counts Two and Three be served concurrently with each other and that Counts One and Four be served concurrently with each other, but consecutive to Counts Two and Three for an aggregate prison sentence of 120 months. Appellant also was classified as a Tier II Sex Offender.

         {¶4} Appellant now appeals, raising the following assignment of error on appeal:

         {¶5} I. THE TRIAL COURT RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THE IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.

         I

         {¶6} Appellant in his sole assignment of error, argues that the record does not support the imposition of consecutive sentences. Appellant does not argue that the trial court failed to make the appropriate findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C). Instead, he argues that consecutive sentences are inappropriate.

         Standard of ...


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.