State v. Graves

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 4, 2026
• Docket: 116086
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Graves, 2026-Ohio-2095.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 116086 v. :

MARLON GRAVES, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 4, 2026

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-25-704062-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Christine M. Vacha, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Clarissa A. Smith, for appellant.

DEENA R. CALABRESE, P.J.:

Defendant-appellant Marlon Graves (“Graves”) appeals the trial court’s

denial of his request for a presentence-investigation report. For the reasons stated

below, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Graves’s request for a presentence-

investigation report. Relevant Facts and Procedural History

On or about June 13, 2025, events took place that led to the death of

Graves’s wife, Angela Madden-Graves (“Angela”). On that morning Graves and

Angela were involved in a physical altercation where Graves struck Angela in the

head multiple times. Angela was taken to the hospital five hours later and was

diagnosed with a brain bleed. Angela died on June 16, 2025.

Graves was indicted on Counts 1 and 2, murder, both unclassified

felonies, and Count 3, felonious assault, a second-degree felony. On January 28,

2026, Graves entered into a negotiated plea agreement with the State of Ohio

(“State”). At the beginning of the plea hearing, Graves requested a presentence

investigation. The trial court indicated that a presentence-investigation report

would not be done and that the case would likely go directly to sentencing after the

plea. The trial court also gave Graves a moment to discuss the denial of the

presentence-investigation request with defense counsel. Pursuant to the plea

agreement, Graves then pleaded to amended Count 1, involuntary manslaughter, a

third-degree felony. The remaining murder and felonious-assault counts were

dismissed by the State. The trial court sentenced Graves immediately following the

plea hearing to 36 months in prison.

This appeal followed. Graves asserts the following single assignment of

error for review:

The trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s request for a pre-sentence investigation report to be prepared prior to sentencing. Law and Analysis

In his sole assignment of error, Graves asserts that the trial court

abused its discretion when it denied his request for a presentence-investigation

report to be prepared prior to sentencing.

Crim.R. 32.2 provides, in part, that

[u]nless the defendant and the prosecutor in the case agree to waive the presentence investigation report, the court shall, in felony cases, order a presentence investigation and report before imposing community control sanctions or granting probation. The court may order a presentence investigation report notwithstanding the agreement to waive the report. In misdemeanor cases the court may order a presentence investigation before granting probation.

(Emphasis added.)

R.C. 2951.03(A)(1) provides, in part, that

[u]nless the defendant and the prosecutor who is handling the case against the defendant agree to waive the presentence investigation report, no person who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a felony shall be placed under a community control sanction until a written presentence investigation report has been considered by the court. The court may order a presentence investigation report notwithstanding an agreement to waive the report.

It is well-established that a trial court is not required to order a

presentence-investigation report when it imposes a prison term. See State v. Rivas,

2014-Ohio-833, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.), State v. Bonner, 2012-Ohio-2931, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.);

R.C. 2951.03.

Graves has not put forth any persuasive argument that the trial court

erred or that this court should deviate from established law. Graves asserts that the trial court erred by failing to order a presentence-investigation report because

without it the trial court could no longer consider community control or probation

and thus could not consider the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and

2929.12. He further asserts that this means the trial court predetermined that his

sentence would be prison. We do not agree. First, Graves has not provided any legal

authority to support his assertion that the trial court erred. In addition, Graves does

not dispute that the sentence imposed by the trial court is within the sentencing

guidelines. Lastly, a review of the record reveals that the parties put sufficient facts

on the record during the plea hearing and sentencing for the trial court to determine

an appropriate sentence. The trial court indicated that it considered the sentencing

factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The record also reveals that the trial

court informed Graves that a presentence investigation would not be ordered prior

to accepting Graves’s plea and Graves chose to go forward with the negotiated plea

agreement.

For the reasons stated above, Graves’s sole assignment of error is

overruled and the trial court’s denial of his request for a presentence-investigation

report is affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s convictions having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case

remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

________________________________ DEENA R. CALABRESE, PRESIDING JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and TIMOTHY W. CLARY, J., CONCUR