State v. Patterson , 2018 Ohio 4114 ( 2018 )

[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2018-Ohio-4114.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 106655
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ALONZO PATTERSON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-16-606558-A
BEFORE: McCormack, P.J., E.T. Gallagher, J., and Jones, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 11, 2018
[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2018-Ohio-4114.]
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Patricia J. Smith
206 S. Meridian Street, Suite A
Ravenna, OH 44266
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. O’Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Martin Maxwell
Assistant County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2018-Ohio-4114.]
TIM McCORMACK, P.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Alonzo Patterson (“Patterson”) appeals his sentence.
Because we find that Patterson’s sentence is not subject to appellate review, we affirm.
Procedural and Substantive History
{¶2} As this case was resolved by a plea agreement, our summary of the
underlying facts are limited to what was placed on the record at sentencing. On May 19,
2016, Patterson shot and killed 19-year-old Diamond Russell. Patterson had been
hanging out with a friend at a gas station when, allegedly in response to shots fired by
another individual, Patterson fired three shots into Russell’s back as Russell and two of
his friends were fleeing.
{¶3} Patterson and a codefendant were charged in a 14-count indictment with
aggravated murder, murder, and felonious assault as to Russell, and attempted murder
as to Russell’s friends, along with tampering with evidence, discharge of a firearm on or
near prohibited premises, and carrying a concealed weapon. Patterson initially pleaded
not guilty to all counts. Ultimately, a plea agreement was negotiated.
{¶4} On May 8, 2017, Patterson pleaded guilty to an amended Count 1,
involuntary manslaughter, with a three-year firearm specification; an amended Count 5,
attempted murder, with a three-year firearm specification; an amended Count 7, attempted
murder, with a three-year firearm specification; Count 9, tampering with evidence; and
Count 12, carrying a concealed weapon. The remaining counts and specifications were
dismissed. As part of the plea agreement, the prosecutor and defense counsel jointly
recommended a sentence between 23 and 30 years in prison.
{¶5} Patterson was referred for a presentence investigation report and a
mitigation report. The court held a sentencing hearing on June 15, 2017. At
sentencing, the prosecutor argued on behalf of a 30-year sentence, citing the particularly
tragic nature of the offense. Defense counsel argued for a sentence at the lower end of
the recommended range, citing Patterson’s lack of criminal history and the absence of an
intent to harm the victim. The court also heard from the victim’s mother, Patterson’s
mother, and Patterson himself.
{¶6} The court imposed a sentence of 3 years for the firearm specification to be
served prior to and consecutive to 10 years for the underlying offense in Count 1; 3 years
for the firearm specification to be served prior to and consecutive to 9 years for the
underlying offense in Count 5, to be served consecutive to Count 1; 3 years for the
firearm specification to be served concurrent to Count 1, and 8 years on the underlying
offense in Count 7 to be served concurrently to Count 1; 36 months on Count 9, to run
concurrently; and 18 months on Count 12, also to run concurrently. Patterson’s total
aggregate sentence was 25 years. Patterson was granted 393 days of jail time credit.
{¶7} Patterson appeals his sentence, presenting one assignment of error for our
review.
Law and Analysis
{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Patterson argues that the trial court erred by
failing to both (1) make the required findings for consecutive sentences under R.C.
2929.14(C)(4), and to consider mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.12(E) and (2)
incorporate those findings into its sentencing journal entry.
{¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08, a reviewing court may overturn the imposition of
consecutive sentences where it “clearly and convincingly finds that ‘the record does not
support the sentencing court’s findings’ under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or the sentence is
‘otherwise contrary to law.’” State v. Hendricks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101864,
2015-Ohio-2268, ¶ 9, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) through 2953.08(G)(2)(b).
{¶10} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), however, a sentence imposed upon a
defendant is not subject to appellate review if the sentence is authorized by law, has been
recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and has been
imposed by the sentencing judge. This limitation on a defendant’s ability to bring an
appellate challenge of an agreed sentence applies equally to cases involving range
agreements, such as this case, and cases involving specific term agreements. State v.
Grant, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104918, 2018-Ohio-1759, ¶ 18. Further, the limitation
applies to cases in which the sentence includes nonmandatory consecutive sentences,
despite no specific agreement as to consecutive sentences. Id. at ¶ 24; State v. Glaze,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105519, 2018-Ohio-2184, ¶ 15.
{¶11} Here, Patterson’s sentence was authorized by law, despite the absence of an
explicit agreement to consecutive sentences beyond those statutorily required for firearm
specifications. Further, it was jointly recommended. Patterson and the state
recommended that the court impose a sentence of between 23 and 30 years. The court
imposed a sentence of 25 years. Because his sentence was authorized by law, jointly
recommended, and imposed by a sentencing judge, Patterson’s sentence is not subject to
appellate review. Therefore, we affirm his sentence.
{¶12} 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. The defendant’s conviction having
been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court
for execution of sentence.
[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2018-Ohio-4114.]
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
__________________________________________
TIM McCORMACK, PRESIDING JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR