State v. Colvin

2025 Ohio 292 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Clark County · January 31, 2025 · No. 2024-CA-36

Summary

This Ohio Court of Appeals opinion addresses a criminal defendant's appeal of his sentence imposed pursuant to a jointly recommended plea agreement. Although the trial court misstated the terms of the agreement during the oral sentencing hearing, the written judgment entry correctly reflected the negotiated 15-to-20-year prison term. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that under R.C. 2953.08(D), an agreed sentence authorized by law and jointly recommended by the parties is not subject to appellate review. Consequently, the defendant's challenge regarding the lack of statutory findings for consecutive sentences was overruled.

Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District, Clark County
Writing for the Court
Huffman, J.; Epley, P.J.; Lewis, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
January 31, 2025
Docket number
2024-CA-36
Procedural posture
Appeal from trial court sentencing; appellant seeks reversal of sentence.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Myron Colvin v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingcriminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an agreed sentence that includes consecutive sentences is reviewable on appeal under R.C. 2953.08(D).
  2. Whether the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to consecutive terms without the statutory findings required for consecutive sentencing.

Holdings

  1. An agreed sentence that is authorized by law, jointly recommended by the parties, and imposed by the sentencing judge is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(D), even if the trial court fails to make the findings required for consecutive sentences.
  2. The trial court did not err; because the sentence was an agreed sentence, the court was not required to make the separate findings for consecutive sentencing.

Key quotations

We have held that agreed sentences are not reviewable on appeal. State v. Turner, 2011-Ohio-6714, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.). (¶ 11)
An agreed sentence that involves a discretionary decision to impose consecutive sentences is ‘authorized by law’ and unreviewable on appeal even if the trial court fails to make the consecutive‑sentence findings. State v. Morgan, 2018-Ohio-3198, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.). (¶ 15)

Factual background

Colvin pleaded guilty to multiple felony assault and drug trafficking counts under plea agreements that prescribed specific prison terms. The agreements required eight years for one assault count, seven years for another, ten to fifteen years for a drug trafficking count, and five years for a second‑degree felony, with the two case sentences to run concurrently for a total of 15‑20 years.

Procedural history

Colvin was convicted in two separate criminal cases and entered plea agreements that provided for an agreed sentence of 15‑20 years, to be served with certain consecutive and concurrent terms. The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the plea agreement, though it misstated the terms at the sentencing hearing. Colvin appealed, arguing the sentence was improper and not supported by required findings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Second Appellate District Clark County