State v. Wolfe
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Wolfe, 2006-Ohio-3784.] [Please also see 2007-Ohio-1218.] COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P. J. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. John F. Boggins, J. -vsCase No. 05 CAA 12 0087 HENRY WOLFE Defendant-Appellant OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 05CR I 10 520 JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 21, 2006 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant DAVID H. BIRCH 2 West Winter Street Delaware, Ohio 43015 Delaware County, Case No. 05 CAA 12 0087 2 Wise, P. J. {¶1} Appellant Henry Wolfe appeals the sentence imposed by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. The following facts give rise to this appeal. {¶2} On October 14, 2005, the Delaware County Grand Jury indicted appellant on six counts of breaking and entering, fifteen counts of theft, six counts of vandalism, three counts of possessing criminal tools and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. businesses. These charges were the result of appellant breaking into five area Appellant entered a plea of not guilty, at his arraignment, on October 31, 2005. {¶3} This matter proceeded to a jury trial on November 15, 2005. Following deliberations, the jury found appellant guilty of the following charges: Counts 3 and 15, breaking and entering and vandalism of Delco Drive-Thru; Counts 4, 24 and 28, breaking and entering, vandalism and possession of criminal tools involving Midway Market; Counts 5 and 25, breaking and entering and vandalism involving Pit Crew Carry-Out and Count 31, engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity based on the underlying breaking and entering charges. The trial court sentenced appellant accordingly. {¶4} Appellant appealed and sets forth the following assignment of error for our consideration: {¶5} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THAT THE IMPOSITION OF A MAXIMUM SENTENCE IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS CONTRARY TO LAW. Delaware County, Case No. 05 CAA 12 0087 3 I {¶6} In his sole assignment of error, appellant maintains the maximum penalty, under the RICO statute, is inappropriate and against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. {¶7} Count 31 of the indictment charged appellant with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, a felony of the first degree. Appellant argues the trial court improperly sentenced him to the maximum sentence as to Count 31. R.C. 2929.14(A)(1) sets forth the penalty for a felony of the first degree. This statute provides as follows: {¶8} (1) For a felony of the first degree, the prison term shall be three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, or ten years. {¶9} 31. The trial court sentenced appellant to an eight-year prison term for Count This is not the maximum sentence permitted for a felony of the first degree. Accordingly, we find the trial court s sentence is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Delaware County, Case No. 05 CAA 12 0087 4 {¶10} Appellant s sole assignment of error is overruled. {¶11} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed. By: Wise, P. J. Gwin, J., and Boggins, J., concur. ___________________________________ HON. JOHN W. WISE ___________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN ___________________________________ HON. JOHN F. BOGGINS JWW/d 75 Delaware County, Case No. 05 CAA 12 0087 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vsHENRY WOLFE Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 05 CAA 12 0087 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs assessed to Appellant. ___________________________________ HON. JOHN W. WISE ___________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN ___________________________________ HON. JOHN F. BOGGINS
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.
