State v. Moore

2024-Ohio-5839 · Ohio Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District · December 13, 2024 · No. 2024-CA-12

Summary

This Ohio Court of Appeals opinion addresses a criminal defendant's appeal challenging his sentence for aggravated robbery, arguing that the trial court failed to consider his youth as a mandatory mitigating factor under R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b). The appellate court notes that the defendant entered a plea agreement with a jointly recommended sentence range. Applying R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), the court concludes that jointly recommended sentences authorized by law are not subject to appellate review unless they violate constitutional provisions or specific statutory mandates not present here. Consequently, the court affirms the trial court's judgment.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District
Writing for the Court
Welbaum, J.; Epley, P.J.; Huffman, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
December 13, 2024
Docket number
2024-CA-12
Procedural posture
Moore pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement that included a jointly recommended sentence of no more than ten years. The trial court imposed concurrent indefinite prison terms of ten to fifteen years. Moore appealed, arguing that the court failed to consider the statutory youth-related mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b).
Standard of review
The court treated the issue as a question of whether appellate jurisdiction existed under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). A jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law is not reviewable under that statute.
Precedential value
published and precedential Ohio Court of Appeals opinion
Parties
Tyron Markus Jermaine Moore v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingappellate jurisdictioncriminal procedurestatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal proceduresentencingjuvenile justiceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Moore's jointly recommended sentence was reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).
  2. Whether the trial court's alleged failure to consider the youth-related mitigating factors in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b) could be reviewed on appeal despite the jointly recommended sentence.

Holdings

  1. A sentence imposed within a sentencing range jointly recommended by the defendant and the State is a jointly recommended sentence for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).
  2. Because the sentence was authorized by law and jointly recommended by the parties, Moore's sentence was not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). The statutory youth-related considerations in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b) do not create a constitutional claim or otherwise overcome the statutory bar to review.

Key quotations

A sentence is ‘authorized by law’ and is not appealable within the meaning of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions. (¶ 40)
Based on the preceding discussion, the jointly recommended sentence was authorized by law and is not subject to review based on R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). (¶ 53)

Factual background

Moore was sixteen when he participated in multiple armed-robbery incidents. On May 22, 2023, he threatened one woman with a gun during an unsuccessful attempted car robbery and forced another woman from her vehicle at gunpoint, stealing the vehicle. After police pursued and apprehended Moore and others, Moore was transferred from juvenile court to adult court.

Procedural history

The juvenile court found probable cause and relinquished jurisdiction over Moore, who was sixteen when the offenses occurred, transferring the case to the Clark County Court of Common Pleas. After Moore pleaded guilty to two aggravated-robbery counts, the State dismissed the remaining counts and the parties jointly recommended a sentence of no more than ten years. The common pleas court imposed concurrent ten-to-fifteen-year sentences, and the Second District affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Ohio Court Of Appeals Second Appellate District