[Cite as State v. Gulley, 2011-Ohio-3811.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO
Plaintiff-Appellee
-vs-
JESSE GULLEY
Defendant-Appellant
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Case No. 2010 CA 00296
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2005 CR 00745
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 1, 2011 APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN D. FERRERO MATTHEW PETIT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 116 Cleveland Avenue NW KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY 808 Courtyard Centre ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR Canton, Ohio 44702 110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant Jesse Gulley appeals his conviction entered in the Stark County
Court of Common Pleas on one count of possession of cocaine.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} In 2005, Appellant Jesse Gulley, was indicted on charges of possession
of cocaine, in violation of R.C. §2925.11 (A)(C)(4){E). Due to the weight of the cocaine
being 43 grams, felony one penalties attached.
{¶3} The case came on for jury trial on February 8, 2006 before a visiting
judge. The jury returned with a verdict of guilty to the charges in the indictment.
{¶4} The trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) and on March 9,
2006, Appellant returned to court for sentencing. The trial court sentenced Appellant to
nine years in prison and imposed a $20,000.00 fine. Appellant was further notified that
post-release control was mandatory up to a maximum of five years. (Judgment Entry,
3/9/06).
{¶5} Appellant filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal which was
granted. The appeal was heard by the Ninth District Court of Appeals due to the fact
that Appellant’s former appellate counsel is now an employee of this Court. In that
appeal, Appellant did not raise a specific error as to his sentence, only the basis of his conviction and denial of his suppression motion. The court of appeals affirmed his
conviction. State v. Gulley, Stark App. No. 2006 CA 00114, 2008-0hio-887, motion for
delayed appeal denied, 120 Ohio St.3d 1451, 2008-0hio-6813.
{¶6} On December 3, 2009, Appellant filed a motion with the trial court asking
for a new sentencing hearing under the line of cases emanating from the Ohio Supreme
Court relating to post release control. See e.g., State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94,
2007-0hio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961, syllabus. In Bezak, the Ohio Supreme Court held,
"[w]hen a defendant is convicted of or pleads guilty to one or more offenses and post-
release control is not properly included in a sentence for a particular offense, the
sentence for that offense is void and the offender is entitled to a new sentencing hearing
for that particular offense."
{¶7} In his motion, Appellant alleged that the trial court failed to inform him of
post-release control at the sentencing hearing. The trial court summarily overruled his
motion.
{¶8} Appellant filed an appeal to this Court and the Court remanded the case to
the trial court, finding that the sentencing judgment entry did not include the imposition
of post-release control, and the trial court failed to notify Appellant of post-release
control at the sentencing hearing. State v. Gulley, Stark App.No. 2010-CA-00003, 2010-
0hio-3590.
{¶9} On September 1, 2010, the trial court had Appellant transported from
prison and held a sentencing hearing pursuant to the remand of this Court. At the
hearing, the trial court imposed a mandatory term of five years of post-release control. (Tr. 4). The trial court re-imposed a sentence of nine years. (T. at 4). (See Judgment
Entry, Sept. 14, 2010).
{¶10} Appellant now appeals, assigning the following errors for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶11} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING THE APPELLANT.
{¶12} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT HIS RIGHT
TO ALLOCUTION.”
I.
{¶13} In his first assignment of error, Appellant claims that the trial court erred in
not considering the statutory factors contained in R.C. §2929.11 and R.C. §2929.12
prior to imposing sentence. We disagree.
{¶14} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 896 N.E.2d 124, 2008–Ohio–4912,
the Supreme Court of Ohio set forth the following two-step approach in reviewing a
sentence:
{¶15} “In applying Foster to the existing statutes, appellate courts must apply a
two-step approach. First, they must examine the sentencing court's compliance with all
applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the
sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. If this first prong is satisfied, the
trial court's decision shall be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
{¶16} In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's
decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law
or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983) 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140. {¶17} We note that although in Oregon v. Ice (2009), 555 U.S. 160, 129 S.Ct.
711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutional
validity of an Oregon statute similar to Ohio's pre-Foster sentencing statutes, the
Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1, 941 N.E.2d 768, 2010–
Ohio–6320, held the Oregon case did not revive the Foster statutes, and trial courts are
not obligated to engage in judicial fact-finding prior to imposing consecutive sentences.
{¶18} In the case sub judice, Appellant was convicted of a first degree felony.
Felonies of the first degree are punishable by up to ten years. The trial court herein
sentenced Appellant to nine years. The sentence is within the permissible range.
Furthermore, in its judgment entry, the trial court expressly stated that it considered the
purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. §2929.11, as well as the seriousness
and recidivism factors under R.C. §2929.12. Accordingly, the sentences are not clearly
and convincingly contrary to law.
{¶19} We further find that Appellant failed to challenge his sentence in his direct
appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that if a defendant is under a sentence in
which post-release control was not properly handled, only the offending portion of the
sentence dealing with post-release control is subject to review and correction. State v.
Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010–Ohio–6238. The new sentencing hearing to which the
offender is entitled is limited to the issue of post-release control. Id.
{¶20} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶21} In his second assignment of error, Appellant claims that the trial court
denied him his right of allocution. We disagree. {¶22} Crim. R. 32 addresses the trial court's duty upon imposition of sentence.
The rule provides:
{¶23} “(A) Imposition of sentence. Sentence shall be imposed without
unnecessary delay. Pending sentence, the court may commit the defendant or continue
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Gulley, 2011-Ohio-3811.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO
Plaintiff-Appellee
-vs-
JESSE GULLEY
Defendant-Appellant
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Case No. 2010 CA 00296
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2005 CR 00745
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 1, 2011 APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN D. FERRERO MATTHEW PETIT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 116 Cleveland Avenue NW KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY 808 Courtyard Centre ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR Canton, Ohio 44702 110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant Jesse Gulley appeals his conviction entered in the Stark County
Court of Common Pleas on one count of possession of cocaine.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} In 2005, Appellant Jesse Gulley, was indicted on charges of possession
of cocaine, in violation of R.C. §2925.11 (A)(C)(4){E). Due to the weight of the cocaine
being 43 grams, felony one penalties attached.
{¶3} The case came on for jury trial on February 8, 2006 before a visiting
judge. The jury returned with a verdict of guilty to the charges in the indictment.
{¶4} The trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) and on March 9,
2006, Appellant returned to court for sentencing. The trial court sentenced Appellant to
nine years in prison and imposed a $20,000.00 fine. Appellant was further notified that
post-release control was mandatory up to a maximum of five years. (Judgment Entry,
3/9/06).
{¶5} Appellant filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal which was
granted. The appeal was heard by the Ninth District Court of Appeals due to the fact
that Appellant’s former appellate counsel is now an employee of this Court. In that
appeal, Appellant did not raise a specific error as to his sentence, only the basis of his conviction and denial of his suppression motion. The court of appeals affirmed his
conviction. State v. Gulley, Stark App. No. 2006 CA 00114, 2008-0hio-887, motion for
delayed appeal denied, 120 Ohio St.3d 1451, 2008-0hio-6813.
{¶6} On December 3, 2009, Appellant filed a motion with the trial court asking
for a new sentencing hearing under the line of cases emanating from the Ohio Supreme
Court relating to post release control. See e.g., State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94,
2007-0hio-3250, 868 N.E.2d 961, syllabus. In Bezak, the Ohio Supreme Court held,
"[w]hen a defendant is convicted of or pleads guilty to one or more offenses and post-
release control is not properly included in a sentence for a particular offense, the
sentence for that offense is void and the offender is entitled to a new sentencing hearing
for that particular offense."
{¶7} In his motion, Appellant alleged that the trial court failed to inform him of
post-release control at the sentencing hearing. The trial court summarily overruled his
motion.
{¶8} Appellant filed an appeal to this Court and the Court remanded the case to
the trial court, finding that the sentencing judgment entry did not include the imposition
of post-release control, and the trial court failed to notify Appellant of post-release
control at the sentencing hearing. State v. Gulley, Stark App.No. 2010-CA-00003, 2010-
0hio-3590.
{¶9} On September 1, 2010, the trial court had Appellant transported from
prison and held a sentencing hearing pursuant to the remand of this Court. At the
hearing, the trial court imposed a mandatory term of five years of post-release control. (Tr. 4). The trial court re-imposed a sentence of nine years. (T. at 4). (See Judgment
Entry, Sept. 14, 2010).
{¶10} Appellant now appeals, assigning the following errors for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶11} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING THE APPELLANT.
{¶12} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT HIS RIGHT
TO ALLOCUTION.”
I.
{¶13} In his first assignment of error, Appellant claims that the trial court erred in
not considering the statutory factors contained in R.C. §2929.11 and R.C. §2929.12
prior to imposing sentence. We disagree.
{¶14} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 896 N.E.2d 124, 2008–Ohio–4912,
the Supreme Court of Ohio set forth the following two-step approach in reviewing a
sentence:
{¶15} “In applying Foster to the existing statutes, appellate courts must apply a
two-step approach. First, they must examine the sentencing court's compliance with all
applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the
sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. If this first prong is satisfied, the
trial court's decision shall be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
{¶16} In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's
decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law
or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983) 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140. {¶17} We note that although in Oregon v. Ice (2009), 555 U.S. 160, 129 S.Ct.
711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutional
validity of an Oregon statute similar to Ohio's pre-Foster sentencing statutes, the
Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1, 941 N.E.2d 768, 2010–
Ohio–6320, held the Oregon case did not revive the Foster statutes, and trial courts are
not obligated to engage in judicial fact-finding prior to imposing consecutive sentences.
{¶18} In the case sub judice, Appellant was convicted of a first degree felony.
Felonies of the first degree are punishable by up to ten years. The trial court herein
sentenced Appellant to nine years. The sentence is within the permissible range.
Furthermore, in its judgment entry, the trial court expressly stated that it considered the
purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. §2929.11, as well as the seriousness
and recidivism factors under R.C. §2929.12. Accordingly, the sentences are not clearly
and convincingly contrary to law.
{¶19} We further find that Appellant failed to challenge his sentence in his direct
appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that if a defendant is under a sentence in
which post-release control was not properly handled, only the offending portion of the
sentence dealing with post-release control is subject to review and correction. State v.
Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010–Ohio–6238. The new sentencing hearing to which the
offender is entitled is limited to the issue of post-release control. Id.
{¶20} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶21} In his second assignment of error, Appellant claims that the trial court
denied him his right of allocution. We disagree. {¶22} Crim. R. 32 addresses the trial court's duty upon imposition of sentence.
The rule provides:
{¶23} “(A) Imposition of sentence. Sentence shall be imposed without
unnecessary delay. Pending sentence, the court may commit the defendant or continue
or alter the bail. At the time of imposing sentence, the court shall do all of the following:
{¶24} “(1) Afford counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant and
address the defendant personally and ask if he or she wishes to make a statement in
his or her own behalf or present any information in mitigation of punishment.
{¶25} “(2) Afford the prosecuting attorney an opportunity to speak;
{¶26} “(3) Afford the victim the rights provided by law;
{¶27} “(4) In serious offenses, state its statutory findings and give reasons
supporting those findings, if appropriate.”
{¶28} This rule refers to what is commonly referred to as a defendant's right of
allocution.
{¶29} “A Crim.R. 32 inquiry is much more than an empty ritual: it represents a
defendant's last opportunity to plead his case or express remorse.” State v. Green
(2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 352, 359-60, 738 N.E.2d 1208. The requirement of allocution is
considered fulfilled when the conduct of the court clearly indicates to the defendant and
his counsel that each has a right to make a statement prior to the imposition of
sentence. Defiance v. Cannon (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 821, 828, 592 N.E.2d 884, citing
United States v. Byars (C.A.6, 1961), 290 F.2d 515, 517. The right to allocution is both
absolute and not subject to waiver due to a defendant's failure to object. State v.
Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 325-326, 738 N.E.2d 1178. {¶30} At the September 1, 2010, hearing in this matter, Appellant was
represented by counsel. Prior to imposing sentence, the trial court made the following
inquiry:
{¶31} “Court: Mr. Gulley, counsel, anything you wish to state prior to the Court
imposing sentence in this matter?” (T. at 3).
{¶32} In response to the trial court’s inquiry, Appellant’s trial counsel stated:
{¶33} “Counsel: [N]ot today, Judge." (T. at 3).
{¶34} While this exchange is short, it clearly indicates that the trial court
provided both Appellant and his counsel the right to make a statement prior to the
imposition of sentence.
{¶35} Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶36} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas,
Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Delaney, J., concur.
___________________________________
JUDGES JWW/d 0707 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : JESSE GULLEY : : Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 2010 CA 00296
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to Appellant.
JUDGES