State v. Bullock

[Cite as State v. Bullock, 2016-Ohio-4591.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
CASE NO. CA2015-12-097
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
OPINION
: 6/27/2016
- vs -
:
BUDDY DEE BULLOCK, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 2014CR00695
D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas Horton, 76 South
Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee
Denise S. Barone, 385 North Street, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for defendant-appellant
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Buddy Dee Bullock, appeals from the ten-month prison
sentence he received in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas after he entered a no
contest plea to one count of aggravated possession of methamphetamine. For the reasons
outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On December 4, 2014, the Clermont County Grand Jury returned an indictment
charging Bullock with one count of aggravated possession of methamphetamine in violation
Clermont CA2015-12-097
of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth-degree felony. According to the bill of particulars, the charge
arose after an officer from the Clermont County Sheriff's Office witnessed Bullock place a
"plastic container with bluish white powder in it under a blanket" on June 28, 2014 while
officers were attempting to serve a warrant on a juvenile at the home located at 235 Mulberry
Street, Lot 22, Felicity, Clermont County, Ohio. Test results later confirmed that the bluish
white powder found in the plastic container was methamphetamine.
{¶ 3} Bullock failed to appear for his arraignment and was subsequently arrested on
June 24, 2015. Following his arrest, Bullock entered a not guilty plea. Thereafter, on
October 5, 2015, Bullock withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of no contest to the
single fifth-degree felony charge of aggravated possession of methamphetamine. After
engaging Bullock in the necessary plea colloquy, the trial court accepted Bullock's no contest
plea and found him guilty as charged. The trial court then held a sentencing hearing and
sentenced Bullock to serve ten months in prison. Bullock now appeals from the trial court's
decision, raising a single assignment of error for review.
{¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING THE APPELLANT TO A
STATED PRISON TERM OF TEN MONTHS.
{¶ 5} In his single assignment of error, Bullock claims the trial court erred by
sentencing him to serve ten months in prison. We disagree.
{¶ 6} Initially, Bullock claims the trial court's decision to sentence him to ten months
in prison was excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. However, as recently noted
by the Ohio Supreme Court, "appellate courts may not apply the abuse-of-discretion standard
in sentencing-term challenges." State v. Marcum, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 10.
Moreover, as this court has stated previously, a sentence that falls within the permissible
statutory range is generally "not excessive and does not violate the constitutional prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment." State v. Bosman, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2001-05-
-2-
Clermont CA2015-12-097
101, 2002 WL 42887, *1 (Jan. 14, 2002). Such is clearly the case here for Bullock's ten-
month prison sentence falls well within the permissible statutory range for a fifth-degree
felony charge of aggravated possession of methamphetamine. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(5)
("[f]or a felony of the fifth degree, the prison term shall be six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven,
or twelve months"). There is also nothing about this sentence that would render it so
disproportionate to the offense that it would shock the moral sense of the community. State
v. Accorinti, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2012-10-205 and CA2012-11-221, 2013-Ohio-4429, ¶
21. Therefore, Bullock's first argument is without merit.
{¶ 7} Next, Bullock argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel since his trial
counsel failed to present "better mitigation at the sentencing hearing." However, as the
record plainly reveals, Bullock's trial counsel offered wide-ranging evidence in mitigation at
Bullock's sentencing hearing. For instance, after requesting the trial court to consider merely
sentencing Bullock to community control, Bullock's trial counsel noted that Bullock had been
"very good" in terms of his reporting to the probation department while this case was
pending, that Bullock had been "clean and sober" while out on bond, that Bullock had always
followed up with him, and that Bullock had generally been punctual. Bullock's trial counsel
also noted that Bullock fully admitted to "having this vial of stuff and putting it" under the
blanket, but that he was now "trying to work his way back to society" and "trying to stay on
the straight and narrow here."
{¶ 8} Bullock has not provided this court with any argument regarding the existence
of other "better mitigation" evidence, nor has Bullock offered any suggestion as to how his
trial counsel should have performed differently. Bullock has also not offered any evidence
that his sentence would have been any different but for his trial counsel's performance in this
matter. In so holding, we note that the record indicates Bullock committed this crime
approximately one month after being released from parole. The record also indicates Bullock
-3-
Clermont CA2015-12-097
has an extensive criminal history that includes convictions for trafficking in marijuana,
possession of drug paraphernalia, illegal manufacturing of methamphetamine, aggravated
possession of methamphetamine, assault, aggravated menacing, resisting arrest, domestic
violence, and abduction, among others.1 Therefore, because Bullock has failed to
demonstrate that his trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance, Bullock's second
argument is likewise without merit.
{¶ 9} Although not raised as part of Bullock's single assignment of error, the state
wishes to dispel any concern that this court may have as to whether there was sufficient
evidence to support the trial court's guilt finding since Bullock denied knowing that the plastic
container he was seen placing under the blanket contained methamphetamine. However,
pursuant to Crim.R. 11(B)(2), it is well-established that a no-contest plea "is an admission of
the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment, information, or complaint[.]" In turn, "[s]o long
as the facts alleged in the indictment or bill of particulars would, if proven, support a
conviction of the offense charged, the trial court's acceptance of a no-contest plea to the
charged offense requires a finding of guilty." State v. Harrison, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
23431, 2010-Ohio-2135, ¶ 21. After reviewing the indictment, bill of particulars, and facts
elicited at the sentencing hearing, we have no such concern as the record fully supports the
trial court's guilt finding. Therefore, Bullock's single assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 10} Judgment affirmed.
RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
1. This court affirmed Bullock's prior convictions for illegal manufacture of methamphetamine and aggravated
possession of methamphetamine in State v. Bullock, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2005-04-031, 2006-Ohio-598.
-4-