State v. Ortiz-Rojas

[Cite as State v. Ortiz-Rojas, 2016-Ohio-5138.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 103688
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ADALBERTO J. ORTIZ-ROJAS
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-15-593364-A
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, P.J., Blackmon, J., and Laster Mays, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 28, 2016
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Michael H. Murphy
20325 Center Ridge Road
Suite 512
Rocky River, Ohio 44116
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Marc Bullard
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Justice Center - 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.:
{¶1} Adalberto J. Ortiz-Rojas appeals his 18-month prison sentence, following a
guilty plea to the third-degree felony of trafficking, claiming that the trial court erred by
not finding the presumption of a prison sentence, found in R.C. 2925.03(C)(4)(d), had
been rebutted under R.C. 2929.13(D)(2). Ortiz-Rojas is not challenging any aspect of his
guilty plea. We cannot review the single assignment of error as presented and, therefore,
affirm the conviction.
{¶2} A defendant enjoys only a limited right to appeal sentences under R.C.
2953.08. State v. Marcum, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 22. For example, the
defendant has the right to appeal any sentence consisting of the maximum term allowed
for an offense, any prison sentence imposed for a fourth- or fifth-degree felony in certain
situations, a sentence stemming from certain violent sex offenses, or any sentence that
included an additional prison term imposed pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a). R.C.
2953.08(A); State v. Ongert, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103208, 2016-Ohio-1543, ¶ 8.
None of those provisions apply to the current case.
{¶3} The only other grounds to support an appeal of a final sentence is if the
sentence is contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(A)(4). A sentence is contrary to law if (1) the
sentence falls outside the statutory range for the particular degree of offense, or (2) the
trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12. Id. at ¶ 9, citing State v. Price,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103023, 2016-Ohio-591, ¶ 12; State v. Hinton, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 102710, 2015-Ohio-4907, ¶ 10, citing State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 100206, 2014-Ohio-1520.
{¶4} A trial court need only consider the sentencing factors pursuant to R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12 and need not make findings in support of that consideration.
Ongert at ¶ 12, citing State v. Karlowicz, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102832,
2016-Ohio-925. A sentence within the bounds of the law cannot be deemed contrary to
law because a defendant disagrees with the trial court’s discretion to individually weigh
the sentencing factors. Id.; see also State v. D.S., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-790,
2016-Ohio-2856, ¶ 15 (“Although appellant appears to disagree with the trial court’s
analysis and application of the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth by R.C.
2929.11 and the statutory factors set forth by R.C. 2929.12, such disagreement does not
make a sentence that falls within the applicable statutory range contrary to law.”) As
long as a trial court considered all sentencing factors, the sentence is not contrary to law,
and the record therefore supports the sentence. Marcum at ¶ 23.
{¶5} In this case, Ortiz-Rojas claims the trial court ignored mitigating factors he
presented at the sentencing hearing for the purpose of rebutting the presumption of a
prison sentence under R.C. 2929.13(D)(2).1 Essentially, Ortiz-Rojas complains that the
1
R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) provides that notwithstanding the presumption that prison is necessary
to comply with the sentencing principles and factors under R.C. 2929.11, the trial court may impose
community control sanctions only if the trial court makes certain findings enumerated in that
subdivision.
trial court did not give greater weight to the factors he deemed more relevant — his lack
of a felony criminal record and his remorse over his involvement in the crime, all of
which were presented at the sentencing hearing. The weight given to any one sentencing
factor is purely discretionary and rests with the trial court. All that R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12 require is for the trial court to consider the factors. Ongert at ¶ 10; State v.
Montanez-Roldon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103509, 2016-Ohio-3062, ¶ 10-11 (R.C.
2953.08 precluded appellate review of the trial court’s discretion in weighing the
consistency in sentencing principles under R.C. 2929.11(B) because the final sentence
was within the applicable statutory range and the trial court expressly indicated it
considered all the required statutory factors and principles).2
{¶6} The trial court in this case, at both the sentencing hearing and again in the
final sentencing entry, expressly considered all factors at law before imposing the
mid-range sentence for a third-degree felony offense. Further, R.C. 2929.13(D)(1)
creates a presumption that a “prison term is necessary in order to comply with the
purposes and principles of sentencing under section 2929.11 of the Revised Code.” The
record in this case supports the statutorily authorized sentence, which is not otherwise
2
Panels from this court have gone so far as to conclude, albeit in the context
of resolving a motion to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.
1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), that attempting to challenge the trial court’s
discretion to weigh individual sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is
wholly frivolous in situations in which the trial court, at the sentencing hearing and
in the final entry of conviction, states that it “considered all required factors of law”
before imposing a sentence within the applicable statutory range. State v. Torres,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101769, 2015-Ohio-2038, ¶ 11; State v. Hayes, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 103507, 2016-Ohio-2639, ¶ 19-20.
contrary to law because the trial court expressly considered all of the required sentencing
principles and factors. Marcum at ¶ 23. We cannot review the sentence.
{¶7} We acknowledge that Ortiz-Rojas’s argument implicates R.C. 2929.13(D)(2)
and that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may not modify, vacate, or
otherwise alter a final sentence unless it clearly and convincingly finds in its review
“[t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division (B) or
(D) of 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section
2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant.” (Emphasis omitted.)
Marcum, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 9. Nevertheless, Ortiz-Rojas is not
appealing the findings made pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(D)(2), but instead is appealing the
lack of findings and the failure to impose community control sanctions instead of a prison
term. Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) authorizes this form of review. Findings are only
required if the trial court imposed community control sanctions on a third-degree felony
trafficking conviction in lieu of a prison sentence. The trial court in this case followed
the presumption and imposed a mid-range prison term.
{¶8} Ortiz-Rojas’s arguments are limited to reviewing the trial court’s discretion
used in weighing the sentencing factors for which there is a statutory presumption that
those factors weigh in favor of a prison term. There is no statutory basis for us to review
this aspect of the sentencing in light of the presumption, and especially after all statutory
obligations were satisfied when the trial court expressly considered all the required
factors of law before imposing a mid-range sentence on a third-degree felony offense.
Our review is limited, and Ortiz-Rojas is not claiming his sentence is otherwise contrary
to law. R.C. 2953.08 specifically precludes review of the imposed sentence, and
therefore, we must affirm.
It is ordered that appellee recover from 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.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR