State v. James
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. James, 2017-Ohio-5747.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 105019 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DARRELL L. JAMES DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-16-605993-C BEFORE: Stewart, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and Boyle, J. RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 6, 2017 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Mary Elaine Hall 245 Leader Building 526 Superior Avenue, East Cleveland, OH 44114 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O’Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Brandon Piteo Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 MELODY J. STEWART, J.: {¶1} Defendant-appellant Darrell L. James pleaded guilty to attempted carrying a concealed weapon, a fifth-degree felony. Noting that the offense caused James to violate the terms of probation in another case,1 the court stated: “You have to do six months, and you will do nine months because you were already on probation. That’s why you’re getting a little more, okay. Because I gave you a chance and you threw it away.” James argues on appeal that the court ordered the additional three months as a sentence for the probation violation in the prior case and ordered that sentence to be served consecutive to a six-month sentence for the fifth-degree felony count in this case. He maintains that an order of consecutive service violated R.C. 2929.41(A), which requires, with inapplicable exceptions, a jail term for a misdemeanor to be served concurrently with a prison term or sentence of imprisonment for felony. {¶2} We reject James’s argument because the court did not impose a three-month term for a misdemeanor probation violation consecutively to a six-month prison term. Read in context, the court imposed a single, definite sentence for the offense of attempted carrying a concealed weapon. The court’s statement that “you have to do six months” was a reference to the six-month minimum sentence for a fifth-degree felony. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(5). The court decided not to impose the six-month minimum prison term, telling James that it “gave you a chance and you threw it away.” This was a reference to James having violated the terms of his probation in a different case before the same trial judge. Hence the court’s statement that “you will do nine months because you were already on probation[.]” Our conclusion is further supported by the terms of the court’s sentencing entry where it stated: “The Court imposes a 1 James pleaded guilty to a first-degree misdemeanor count of attempted drug trafficking in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-13-573183. He received a jail term of 180 days, with execution of sentence suspended, and was placed on probation for three years. prison sentence at the Lorain Correctional Institution of 9 month(s).” The court used the word “sentence” to indicate a single sentence. Tellingly, the sentencing entry makes no reference to James’s prior case, nor does the word “consecutive” appear at all in that context. {¶3} For the same reasons, we reject James’s argument that defense counsel was ineffective because she failed to file a sentencing memorandum that preemptively raised the issue of whether the court could order consecutive-service sentences for misdemeanor and felony offenses. Having found that the court imposed a definite sentence for a single offense and did not order consecutive service of multiple prison terms, James has not shown any prejudice from defense counsel’s failure to file a sentencing memorandum. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). {¶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 EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
