State v. Rayburn , 2010 Ohio 5693 ( 2010 )

[Cite as State v. Rayburn, 2010-Ohio-5693.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JACKSON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No: 09CA6
:
v. :
: DECISION AND
STEPHEN I. RAYBURN, : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
Defendant-Appellant. : File-stamped date: 11-18-10
APPEARANCES:
Stephen I. Rayburn, pro se, for Appellant.
Jonathan D. Blanton, Jackson County Prosecutor, Jackson, Ohio, for Appellee.
Kline, J.:
{¶1} Stephen I. Rayburn (hereinafter “Rayburn”) pled guilty to two counts of
sexual battery, and the Jackson County Court of Common Pleas sentenced Rayburn to
a total of eight years in prison. On appeal, Rayburn initially contends that he should
have received the minimum sentence for each count of sexual battery. Because
Rayburn agreed to the eight-year prison term as part of a plea agreement, we will not
review Rayburn’s sentence on appeal. Next, Rayburn contends that postrelease control
violates the Double Jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. Because the
punishment for a postrelease control violation does not implicate Double Jeopardy, we
disagree. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I.
Jackson App. No. 09CA6 2
{¶2} A Jackson County Grand Jury indicted Rayburn for two counts of sexual
battery, in violation of R.C. 2907.03, and five counts of rape, in violation of R.C.
2907.02. Eventually, Rayburn and the state reached a plea agreement. Rayburn
agreed to plead guilty to the two sexual-battery charges, and the state agreed to
dismiss the five rape charges. Additionally, the state agreed to recommend consecutive
four-year prison sentences for a total combined prison term of eight years.
{¶3} Rayburn pled guilty, and the trial court imposed the recommended eight-
year sentence. The trial court also informed Rayburn that he would be subject to
mandatory postrelease control. (At Rayburn’s plea and sentencing hearing, the trial
court informed Rayburn that he would “be subject to Post-Release Control for a period
of five years.” Rayburn’s judgment of conviction, however, states that “he will be
subject to three years of post release control[.]” Because sexual battery is a felony sex
offense, Rayburn is indeed subject to five years of postrelease control, not three years.
See R.C. 2967.28(B)(1). And because his sentence was imposed after July 11, 2006,
the trial court may use the procedure in R.C. 2929.191 to correct the term of Rayburn's
postrelease control. See State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St. 3d 173, 2009-Ohio-6434, at
paragraph two of the syllabus.)
{¶4} Rayburn filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal. We granted that
motion, and Rayburn now asserts the following two assignments of error: I. “THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT OVER THE STATUTORY
MAXIMUM IN VIOLATION OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT[.] [sic]” And, II. “THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN IMPROPERLY INSTRUCTING PRC ‘POST RELEASE CONTROL’
AND PRC VIOLATES THE CLAUSE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY[.]”
Jackson App. No. 09CA6 3
II.
{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Rayburn contends that he should have
received the minimum sentence for each count of sexual battery; i.e., a total combined
prison term of two years. Ostensibly, Rayburn raises constitutional issues in his first
assignment of error. But in reality, Rayburn is challenging Ohio’s sentencing scheme in
the aftermath of State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856.
{¶6} Here, we will not review Rayburn’s first assignment of error. As part of his
plea agreement, Rayburn agreed to the state’s recommendation of an eight-year prison
sentence. This is relevant because R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides that “[a] sentence
imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section if the sentence is
authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution
in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.”
{¶7} We find that R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) applies to Rayburn’s sentence. First,
Rayburn’s sentence is clearly authorized by law. “A sentence is authorized by law if it is
within the statutory range of available sentences.” State v. Baird, Columbiana App. No.
06-CO-4, 2007-Ohio-3400, at ¶13, citing State v. Gray, Belmont App. No. 02 BA 26,
2003-Ohio-805, at ¶10. See, also, State v. Straley, Highland App. No. 09CA4, 2009-
Ohio-6170, at ¶25. Rayburn pled guilty to two third-degree felonies. See R.C.
2907.03(B). Because the maximum penalty for a third-degree felony is five (5) years in
prison, see R.C. 2929.14(A)(3), the trial court could have sentenced Rayburn to a
combined prison term of ten (10) years. Thus, the actual sentence of eight (8) years is
well within the statutory range.
Jackson App. No. 09CA6 4
{¶8} Furthermore, as the record demonstrates, the defendant and the
prosecution jointly recommended the eight-year sentence as part of a plea agreement.
{¶9} “ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR: * * * [I]n this particular case I think the
Defendant desires to plead to Counts One and Two of his indictment, and the State
uh… if that’s what he chooses to do, we would dismiss Three through Seven. Uh... we
have made a recommendation of four years actual incarceration on each charge.
{¶10} “JUDGE: Okay and… what is that? Is that a…
{¶11} “ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR: Sexual Battery is what we’re talking about.
{¶12} “JUDGE: Okay. So, counts Three through Seven would be dismissed
then?
{¶13} “ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR: That is correct Your Honor. And just uh…
for the record uh… throughout this whole process uh… through the aid of our Advocate
in our office, uh… we have been in touch with the uh… victims in this case and they are
aware of this and are agreeable to this arrangement.
{¶14} “JUDGE: Okay. And [Rayburn’s trial counsel], is that your understanding?
{¶15} “[RAYBURN’S TRIAL COUNSEL]: Yes Your Honor, that’s our
understanding.
{¶16} “JUDGE: Okay. And, Mr. Rayburn, is that your understanding?
{¶17} “DEFENDANT: Yes.” (Ellipses Sic.)
{¶18} Later, Rayburn and the prosecution once again agreed on the
recommended sentence.
{¶19} “ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR: Yeah, our recommendation Your Honor
has been uh… worked out in the plea was he would enter the guilty charges, which he
Jackson App. No. 09CA6 5
has done, and the State would recommend four years actual in each of these counts to
run consecutive. Obviously he would get credit for time served. I have no objection to
that.
{¶20} “JUDGE: Okay. [Rayburn’s Trial Counsel?]
{¶21} “[Rayburn’s Trial Counsel]: That is our understanding of the State’s
recommendation as to sentencing Your Honor.” (Emphasis Added.) (Ellipses Sic.)
{¶22} “Where the record indicates that a defendant freely and knowingly entered
into a plea agreement and a jointly recommended sentence, and the trial court imposes
that sentence which is authorized by law, the sentence is not subject to appellate
review.” State v. Lee, Muskingum App. No. 08-CA-70, 2009-Ohio-3423, at ¶18
(citations omitted). See, also, State v. Knisely, Hancock App. No. 5-07-37, 2008-Ohio-
2255, at ¶11-12 (declining to review a sentence that was recommended as part of a
plea agreement); State v. Reese, Jefferson App. No. 07 JE 7, 2008-Ohio-1548, at ¶67
(same). Here, Rayburn entered into the plea agreement knowing that the state would
recommend eight years in prison. Rayburn agreed with that recommendation, and the
trial court imposed the requested sentence. Therefore, because of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1),
this court may not review Rayburn’s sentence or consider his first assignment of error.
See, e.g., State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St. 3d 5, 2005-Ohio-3095, at ¶25 (“The General
Assembly intended a jointly agreed-upon sentence to be protected from review
precisely because the parties agreed that the sentence is appropriate.”); State v.
Tomlinson, Pickaway App. No. 07CA3, 2007-Ohio-4618, at ¶6; State v. Ahmad, Adams
App. No. 06CA828, 2007-Ohio-4567, at ¶22-24; Knisely at ¶12; Baird at ¶ 11-17.
{¶23} Accordingly, we overrule Rayburn’s first assignment of error.
Jackson App. No. 09CA6 6
III.
{¶24} In his second assignment of error, Rayburn contends that postrelease
control violates the Double Jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution.
Essentially, Rayburn argues that receiving a prison term for a postrelease control
violation is unconstitutional. And for that reason, Rayburn contends that he should not
be subjected to postrelease control.
{¶25} Constitutional analysis is a question of law that we review de novo. State
v. Roberts, Montgomery App. No. 23684, 2010-Ohio-3250, at ¶8 (citations omitted);
see, also, State v. Baranski, 173 Ohio App. 3d 410, 2007-Ohio-4072, at ¶6; State v.
Ziepfel (1995), 107 Ohio App. 3d 646, 652. “The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that
no ‘person [shall] be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb.’ [The United States Supreme Court has] long recognized that the Double
Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the imposition of all additional sanctions that could,
in common parlance, be described as punishment. * * * The Clause protects only
against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense[.]” Hudson
v. United States (1997), 522 U.S. 93, 98-99 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis sic).
“[D]ouble jeopardy principles do not prohibit the imposition of every additional sanction
that could be labeled ‘punishment’ in common parlance.” State v. Martello, 97 Ohio
St.3d 398, 2002-Ohio-6661, at ¶8, citing Hudson at 98-99.
{¶26} Here, we find no merit in Rayburn’s Double-Jeopardy arguments. “[T]he
General Assembly has indicated its clear intent that the prison term imposed for the
violation of postrelease control is a reinstatement of part of the original sentence for
violating the conditions of supervision, and is not meant to be a separate criminal
Jackson App. No. 09CA6 7
punishment.” Martello at ¶19. Thus, in Martello, “the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded
that ‘jeopardy does not attach when a defendant receives a term of incarceration for the
violation of conditions of postrelease control.’ [Id. at ¶26]. Such a term of incarceration
is attributable to the original sentence and is not a ‘criminal punishment’ for Double
Jeopardy Clause purposes.” Brown v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Franklin App. No.
09AP-797, 2010-Ohio-872, at ¶7, citing Martello at ¶26. See, also, State v. Ervin, Lake
App. Nos. 2009-L-025 & 2009-L-026, 2009-Ohio-6382, at ¶31; State v. Grider,
Cuyahoga App. No. 90603, 2008-Ohio-5132, at ¶4. Therefore, receiving a prison term
for a postrelease control violation is constitutional, and Rayburn’s argument has no
merit.
{¶27} Accordingly, we overrule Rayburn’s second assignment of error. Having
overruled both of his assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Jackson App. No. 09CA6 8
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED. Appellant shall pay the 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
Jackson County 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. Exceptions.
McFarland, P.J. and Harsha, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court
BY:_____________________________
Roger L. Kline, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment
entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing
with the clerk.