State v. Logsdon, 07-Ca-50 (3-28-2008)
This text of 2008 Ohio 1606 (State v. Logsdon, 07-Ca-50 (3-28-2008)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} Logsdon was originally charged with aggravated murder but that charge was dismissed in exchange for Logsdon's pleas which he made after his trial began. Logsdon was originally sentenced to terms of 18 months for the receiving stolen property charge, five (5) years for the tampering charge, and ten (10) years on the involuntary manslaughter charge. All the sentences were ordered to be served consecutively after the court made certain factual findings. We reversed Logsdon's sentence per State v. Foster,
{¶ 3} In re-sentencing, the trial court noted the seriousness of the crimes for which Logsdon had been convicted and his extensive prior criminal record. The trial court stated it considered all the statutory factors related to sentencing. We see no indication the trial court imposed a sentence contrary to law, and the court had full discretion to impose sentences within the statutory range. State v. Foster, supra, andState v. Wellman,
{¶ 4} Appellate counsel mentions six additional possible issues which we find have no arguable merit. Counsel suggests prior appellate counsel should have appealed Logsdon's underlying conviction as well as his sentence. There is, however, no suggestion that Logsdon's pleas were not intelligently and voluntarily entered. The trial court certainly had discretion to deny trial counsel's request for co-counsel. Appellate counsel certainly was not ineffective for not arguing that trial counsel should have moved to dismiss the indictments on speedy trial grounds. It was trial counsel who sought the continuances in order to prepare for trial. The charges for which Logsdon *Page 3 was convicted are not allied offenses of a similar import, and thus trial counsel was not ineffective for not requesting that the court consider them so for sentencing purposes. Lastly, there was no evidence in this record to suggest Logsdon was led by the court to believe he would receive a six-year sentence in exchange for his guilty pleas. Logsdon was given an opportunity to file his own briefs but he has not done so. We are satisfied after review of the record that there is no arguable merit to these appeals and Logsdon's convictions should be affirmed. The Judgments of the trial court are Affirmed.
*Page 1WOLFF, P.J., and DONOVAN, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2008 Ohio 1606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-logsdon-07-ca-50-3-28-2008-ohioctapp-2008.