State v. Green

2026-Ohio-738 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County · March 5, 2026 · No. 115234

Summary

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Rayven R. Green’s conviction and sentence for second-degree robbery. The court held that Green’s challenge to the denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty plea concerned a separate, still-pending case and was outside the scope of the appeal. The court also held that her eight-year minimum, twelve-year maximum sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law was within the statutory range and was not contrary to law.

Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County
Writing for the Court
Lisa B. Forbes, Presiding Judge; Emmanuella D. Groves, Judge; Eileen A. Gallagher, Judge
Jurisdiction
Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County
Decision date
March 5, 2026
Docket number
115234
Procedural posture
Green appealed her conviction and sentence for second-degree felony robbery, challenging the trial court's handling of a guilty-plea-withdrawal motion filed in a related case and the imposition of the maximum sentence.
Standard of review
Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the appellate court reviews the record and may modify or vacate a felony sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the required findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. The court reviewed the plea-withdrawal assignment for appellate jurisdiction and scope under the notice of appeal.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Court of Appeals opinion
Parties
Rayven R. Green v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingcriminal procedureappellate jurisdictionfinal judgment rulestandard of review

Practice areas

Criminal lawAppellate procedureSentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court of appeals could review Green's challenge to the denial of her motion to withdraw a guilty plea when the motion was filed and decided in a separate, related case that was not designated in the notice of appeal.
  2. Whether the trial court's imposition of the maximum minimum prison term for second-degree felony robbery was contrary to law or clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.

Holdings

  1. The court of appeals could not consider Green's challenge to the denial of her motion to withdraw a guilty plea because the motion concerned a separate related case, was not identified in the notice of appeal, and was not part of the final judgment in the robbery case.
  2. The trial court did not err by imposing the maximum allowable sentence because the eight-year minimum and twelve-year possible maximum were within the statutory range, and the court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors required by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Key quotations

An appellate court may only consider arguments regarding matters that are properly brought before it in compliance with App.R. 3(D) . . . .
A sentence is contrary to law if it falls outside the applicable statutory range or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing established in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors established in R.C. 2929.12.

Factual background

Green pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery after the State dismissed the remaining robbery charges and firearm specifications. The victim was an 84-year-old man who had withdrawn $1,100 from his bank account; according to the State, Green followed him, pushed him to the ground, threatened to shoot him, and took his wallet and money. The victim did not recover the money and suffered bruising to his forearm, wrist, and head.

Procedural history

Green was indicted in the robbery case, pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery, and was sentenced to an eight-year minimum and twelve-year maximum term under the Reagan Tokes Law. She also pleaded guilty to offenses in a separate, still-pending criminal case and filed a motion to withdraw her plea in that case. The court of appeals held that the plea-withdrawal issue was outside the scope of this appeal and affirmed the robbery-case sentence.

Remand instructions

The common pleas court is directed to execute the judgment and sentence; the mandate is to issue, and bail pending appeal is terminated.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…