State v. Stevenson , 2018 Ohio 2645 ( 2018 )

[Cite as State v. Stevenson, 2018-Ohio-2645.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 106128
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
TYREZ STEVENSON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-16-610985-A
BEFORE: Stewart, J., McCormack, P.J., and Boyle, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 5, 2018
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Thomas A. Rein
820 West Superior Avenue, Suite 800
Cleveland, OH 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O’Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Mary M. Frey
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
\
MELODY J. STEWART, J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Tyrez Stevenson pleaded guilty to counts of robbery and
kidnapping, receiving concurrent prison terms of three and ten years, respectively. The court
ordered Stevenson to serve those sentences consecutive to a 17-month sentence in Cuyahoga C.P.
No. CR-16-611038-A. On appeal, Stevenson complains that the court failed to inform him that
there was a presumption of prison time for a first-degree felony (the kidnapping count) and that
the court failed to make the mandatory findings necessary to order consecutive service of
sentences.
{¶2} We reject Stevenson’s first argument that he entered his guilty plea without an
understanding of the maximum penalty involved because the court failed to inform him that there
was a presumption of prison time for a first-degree felony. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) requires the
court to determine that a defendant enters a guilty plea with an understanding of the “maximum
penalty involved.” That requirement does not require the court to determine that the defendant
has an understanding of any statutory presumption in favor of incarceration. State v. Raymond,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99177, 2013-Ohio-3144, ¶ 9; State v. Gales, 2d Dist. Greene No.
97-CA-114, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 4785 (Oct. 9, 1998). The court informed Stevenson that
“felonies of the first degree carry with them a maximum potential penalty of anywhere from 3 to
11 years in prison. Do you understand that?” The first-degree felony count of kidnapping did
not involve mandatory prison time, so the court fully complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a).
{¶3} We can make short work of Stevenson’s second argument that the court failed to
make the required findings in support of consecutive sentences as required by R.C.
2929.14(C)(4). Stevenson candidly states: “For the record, the trial court did at the sentencing
hearing set forth its findings. It also did so in the Sentencing Journal Entry as now required by
[State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659].” See Appellant’s brief
at 16. Appellate counsel claims to have raised the issue solely to “preserve Appellant’s
rights[.]” With that concession, and having reviewed the record and confirmed that Stevenson
has correctly conceded that the findings for ordering consecutive service were properly made, we
overrule Stevenson’s second assignment of error.
{¶4} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas
court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________________________________
MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE
TIM McCORMACK, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR