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. Haralson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Sandusky

June 28, 2019

State of Ohio Appellee
v.
Wilfred Haralson Appellant

          Trial Court No. 18CR565

          Timothy Braun, Sandusky County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark E. Mulligan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

          Christopher M. Marcinko, for appellant.

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT

          PIETRYKOWSKI, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Wilfred Haralson, appeals the August 31, 2018 judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas which, following appellant's guilty plea to three fifth-degree felonies, sentenced him to a total of 30 months of imprisonment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         {¶ 2} On May 22, 2018, appellant was indicted on six, fifth-degree felony counts: three counts of trafficking in heroin, two counts of trafficking in cocaine, and one count of aggravated possession of drugs. The charges followed appellant's arrest after multiple drug transactions involving a confidential informant.

         {¶ 3} On July 10, 2018, appellant entered a guilty plea to two counts of trafficking in cocaine and one count of trafficking in heroin, fifth-degree felonies. Appellant's sentencing hearing was held on August 29, 2018. The trial court sentenced appellant to ten months in prison on each of the three counts to be served consecutively. The court also imposed a fine of $1, 500 on each count. The court's sentencing judgment entry was journalized on August 31, 2018, and this appeal followed.

         {¶ 4} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error:

Assignment of Error One: Whether the trial court's sentence given to the defendant was an abuse of the Court's sentencing discretion and disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendant's conduct.

         {¶ 5} We note that this court reviews felony sentences under the two-prong approach set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and remand a disputed sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:

(a)That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b)That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

         {¶ 6} On the date of sentencing, the prison terms for a fifth-degree felony ranged from 6 to 12 months. R.C. 2929.14(A)(5). R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b) provides, in relevant part:

(b) The court has discretion to impose a prison term upon an offender who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the fourth or fifth degree that is not an offense of violence or that is a qualifying ...

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.