State v. Puckett , 2012 Ohio 6014 ( 2012 )

[Cite as State v. Puckett, 2012-Ohio-6014.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. CT2012-0031
JOSHUA PUCKETT
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. CR2012-0003
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 19, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
ROBERT L. SMITH ERIC J. ALLEN
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 713 South Front Street
27 North Fifth Street Columbus, Ohio 43206
Zanesville, Ohio 43701
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0031 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant Joshua Puckett appeals from his convictions, in the Court of
Common Pleas, Muskingum County, for breaking and entering, motor vehicle theft,
arson, and evidence tampering. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
{¶2} On or about June 27, 2011, appellant and a co-defendant broke into a
shed on private property in Zanesville, Ohio and took tools and equipment. They also
stole a Ford truck parked on the property, which was later abandoned and set on fire.
{¶3} On January 6, 2012, appellant was indicted on one count of breaking and
entering (a felony of the fifth degree), one count of theft (a misdemeanor of the first
degree), one count of arson (a felony of the fourth degree), one count of vandalism (a
felony of the fifth degree), one count of theft of a motor vehicle (a felony of the fourth
degree), and one count of tampering with evidence (a felony of the third degree). On
January 9, 2012, appellant was arrested and taken into custody.
{¶4} Appellant was thereafter arraigned and was appointed counsel.
{¶5} On March 20, 2012, appellant entered pleas of guilty to all six counts.
Pursuant to a plea agreement executed prior to the plea hearing, the State agreed to
recommend, and appellant agreed to accept, a recommendation that appellant be
placed on community control, with restitution orders. The trial court merged count two,
theft, with count one, breaking and entering. The court also merged count four,
vandalism, with count three, arson. However, the court sentenced appellant to an
aggregate term of twenty-four months in prison. This consisted of a prison term of
twelve months on count one, twelve months on count three, twelve months on count
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0031 3
five, and twenty-four months on count six, all to be run concurrently. See Sentencing
Entry, April 23, 2012.
{¶6} On May 23, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal. He herein raises the
following sole Assignment of Error:
{¶7} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT'S (SIC) DISCRETION IN
SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT TO AN AGGREGATE SENTENCE OF TWO
YEARS.”
{¶8} In his sole Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court abused
its discretion in sentencing him to two years in prison. We disagree.
{¶9} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 896 N.E.2d 124, 2008–Ohio–4912, a
plurality opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court established a two-step procedure for
reviewing a felony sentence. The first step is to “examine the sentencing court's
compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine
whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Kalish at ¶ 4. If this
first step is satisfied, the second step requires the trial court's decision be reviewed
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.{¶10} Furthermore, the decision of whether to implement a plea bargain rests in
the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Gastaldo, Tuscarawas App.No.
98AP010006, 1998 WL 667893, citing Akron vs. Ragsdale (1978), 61 Ohio App.2d 107,
399 N.E.2d 119, paragraph one of the syllabus. A decision rejecting a plea bargain
should be accompanied by the trial court's reasons, absent facts and circumstances
otherwise appearing which permit an evaluation of the decision. Gastaldo, supra, citing
Ragsdale at paragraph two of the syllabus.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0031 4
{¶11} In the case sub judice, the sentences at issue are all within the statutory
ranges for third, fourth, and fifth-degree felonies. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(3), (A)(4), and
(A)(5). The trial court, in its sentencing entry, stated in pertinent part as follows: “The
Court has considered the record, all statements, any victim impact statement, the pre-
sentence report prepared, the plea recommendation in this matter, as well as the
principles and purposes of sentencing under Ohio Revised Code §2929.11 and its
balance of seriousness and recidivism factors under Ohio Revised Code §2929.12.”
Judgment Entry, April 23, 2012, at 1.
{¶12} Upon review, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
sentencing appellant to prison for twenty-four months, despite the joint community
control recommendation, as the terms were within the statutory ranges, the trial court
considered the purposes and statutory factors for sentencing, and the trial court duly
considered the presentence investigation report, any specifics of which are not brought
forth in either of the present briefs.
{¶13} Appellant's sole Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
{¶14} For the reasons stated in the foregoing, the decision of the Court of
Common Pleas, Muskingum County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Delaney, P. J., and
Farmer, J., concur.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES
JWW/d 1129
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2012-0031 5
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
JOSHUA PUCKETT :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. CT2012-0031
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to appellant.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES