State v. Harris
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Harris, 2010-Ohio-1591.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-09-1229 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0200902005 v. Ronald L. Harris DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: April 9, 2010 ***** Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Catherine Sheehy, for appellant. ***** SINGER, J. {¶ 1} Appellant appeals his sentence, entered following a conviction for robbery in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. {¶ 2} Appellant, Ronald Harris, was arrested and initially charged with robbery as a second degree felony. He entered a plea of not guilty, but before the matter proceeded to trial agreed to enter a plea of no contest to robbery as a third degree felony. The trial court sentenced appellant to a four year term of incarceration. {¶ 3} Appellant now appeals. In a single assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing upon him a sentence that was not the least authorized by law. {¶ 4} Pursuant to 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 12(A), we sua sponte transfer this matter to our accelerated docket and hereby render our decision. {¶ 5} In analyzing a criminal sentence on appeal, we must first ensure that the trial court has adhered to all the applicable statutes and rules in imposing sentence. This is a purely legal question, "* * * only to determine whether it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law * * *." State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, ¶ 14. If, for example, the sentence is outside the perimeters of the permissible statutory range, the sentence cannot stand. Id. at ¶ 15. {¶ 6} "Assuming the trial court has complied with the applicable rules and statutes, the exercise of its discretion in selecting a sentence within the permissible statutory range is subject to review for abuse of discretion * * *." Id. at ¶ 17. An abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment, the term connotes that the court's attitude is arbitrary, unreasonable of unconscionable. State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157. 2. {¶ 7} Appellant makes no assertion that his four year sentence is outside the permissible range of sentences for a third degree felony. Neither does he suggest that this sentence is in any other manner contrary to law. {¶ 8} In its sentencing entry, the trial court states that it has considered the record, statements to the court and the presentence investigation report, as well as the sentencing considerations contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. We have similarly reviewed these elements and find nothing that would suggest that the court's sentencing decision was arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable. {¶ 9} Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is not well-taken. {¶ 10} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. It is ordered that appellant pay court costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. Peter M. Handwork, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. Arlene Singer, J. CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE _______________________________ JUDGE This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio's Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court's web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6. 3.
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.
