State v. St. Valle

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 1167

Syllabus

Felony sentencing appellate review agreed sentence sentencing range R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) trafficking R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) possessing criminal tools R.C. 2923.24(A) mandatory fine R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) R.C. 2925.03(D)(1) indigency plain error. The prison sentences imposed on the defendant for drug trafficking and possession of criminal tools are not reviewable on appeal by operation of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). The sentences were authorized by law and the aggregate sentence was within the range jointly recommended by the defendant and the state pursuant to a plea agreement. While the defendant disagreed with the trial court's weighing of certain sentencing factors, he made no argument that the sentences fell outside the statutory ranges for the offenses or failed to comport with any mandatory sentencing provision. Nor did the defendant challenge his sentence on constitutional grounds or assert any argument with respect to the validity of his plea. The imposition of a mandatory fine on the trafficking count was not plain error. The trial court considered the defendant's present and future ability to pay the fine and the defendant failed to show he was unable to pay it. He had been employed, had stable housing and close family ties, retained counsel at the trial and appellate levels and was arrested while in the possession of multiple cell phones and hundreds of dollars in cash.