DocketNumber: No. 90650.
Citation Numbers: 2008 Ohio 6655
Judges: MELODY J. STEWART, J.
Filed Date: 12/18/2008
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} In April 2007, Longshaw pleaded guilty to a single count of robbery which alleged that in fleeing after a theft offense he used force against an arresting officer. The court sentenced Longshaw to a 24-month community controlled sanction with the intensive special probation supervision unit, and ordered in-patient drug treatment and regular drug testing. The court made it clear to Longshaw that he would be arrested upon submission of his first positive drug test. Longshaw did not appeal.
{¶ 3} Longshaw completed in-patient drug treatment, but in July 2007 violated his community controlled sanction by submitting a false urine sample for drug testing. When taken into custody, he was in possession of drug paraphernalia. Longshaw admitted submitting the false urine sample. The court imposed a three-year term of incarceration over his request for another opportunity at drug rehabilitation.
{¶ 4} Longshaw's primary argument is that the three-year prison sentence is overly harsh given the circumstances of the offense. He claimed the robbery *Page 4 was one of opportunity that arose after a motorist crashed into a store and opened a hole in the wall. He and others entered the hole and looted the store. During the original sentencing, the court heard that Longshaw took clothing and toiletries worth $94. These items were immediately recovered in saleable condition. The robbery charges arose when he resisted arrest and the police were required to use a taser to subdue him.
{¶ 5} The trial courts no longer engage in fact-finding when imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum prison terms. State v.Foster,
{¶ 6} We are aware that after the release of the plurality decision inState v. Kalish,
{¶ 7} In its original sentencing entry, the court noted that it considered "all required factors of law." The transcript shows the court specifically noted that under R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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 Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 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. *Page 6
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
*Page 1JAMES J. SWEENEY, A.J., and CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, J., CONCUR