State v. Stevenson

2018 Ohio 2645

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 5, 2018
• Docket: 106128
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Stevenson, 2018-Ohio-2645.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 106128

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

TYREZ STEVENSON

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-16-610985-A

BEFORE: Stewart, J., McCormack, P.J., and Boyle, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 5, 2018 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Thomas A. Rein 820 West Superior Avenue, Suite 800 Cleveland, OH 44113

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

Mary M. Frey Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 \

MELODY J. STEWART, J.:

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Tyrez Stevenson pleaded guilty to counts of robbery and

kidnapping, receiving concurrent prison terms of three and ten years, respectively. The court

ordered Stevenson to serve those sentences consecutive to a 17-month sentence in Cuyahoga C.P.

No. CR-16-611038-A. On appeal, Stevenson complains that the court failed to inform him that

there was a presumption of prison time for a first-degree felony (the kidnapping count) and that

the court failed to make the mandatory findings necessary to order consecutive service of

sentences.

{¶2} We reject Stevenson’s first argument that he entered his guilty plea without an

understanding of the maximum penalty involved because the court failed to inform him that there

was a presumption of prison time for a first-degree felony. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) requires the

court to determine that a defendant enters a guilty plea with an understanding of the “maximum

penalty involved.” That requirement does not require the court to determine that the defendant

has an understanding of any statutory presumption in favor of incarceration. State v. Raymond,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99177, 2013-Ohio-3144, ¶ 9; State v. Gales, 2d Dist. Greene No.

97-CA-114, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 4785 (Oct. 9, 1998). The court informed Stevenson that

“felonies of the first degree carry with them a maximum potential penalty of anywhere from 3 to

11 years in prison. Do you understand that?” The first-degree felony count of kidnapping did

not involve mandatory prison time, so the court fully complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a).

{¶3} We can make short work of Stevenson’s second argument that the court failed to

make the required findings in support of consecutive sentences as required by R.C.

2929.14(C)(4). Stevenson candidly states: “For the record, the trial court did at the sentencing hearing set forth its findings. It also did so in the Sentencing Journal Entry as now required by

[State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659].” See Appellant’s brief

at 16. Appellate counsel claims to have raised the issue solely to “preserve Appellant’s

rights[.]” With that concession, and having reviewed the record and confirmed that Stevenson

has correctly conceded that the findings for ordering consecutive service were properly made, we

overrule Stevenson’s second assignment of error.

{¶4} Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover of 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.

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

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________________________________ MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE

TIM McCORMACK, P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR