[Cite as State v. Moore,
2011-Ohio-2220.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vsCase No. CT2010-0048
MARCUS D. MOORE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. CR2010-0065
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 6, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RON WELCH SAM B. WEINER
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR SAMUEL B. WEINER CO., LPA
27 North Fifth Street, P. O. Box 189 743 South Front Street
Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189 Columbus, Ohio 43206
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2010-0048 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Marcus D. Moore appeals his conviction and
sentence entered by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas on one count of
trafficking drugs with a forfeiture specification following a plea.
{¶2} Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
{¶3} On April 1, 2010, Appellant Marcus D. Moore was indicted on one count
of drug trafficking, in violation of R.C. §2925.03(A)(1), a second degree felony, with a
forfeiture specification, after being arrested in a sting operation for selling nine ounces
of cocaine to a confidential informant.
{¶4} On July 19, 2010, Appellant entered a guilty plea as part of a negotiated
plea agreement wherein the State agreed to recommend a sentence of five (5) years of
incarceration. (Plea T. at 7-9).
{¶5} At sentencing, the State made its recommendation of a five year
sentence. (Sent. T. at 4). Appellant requested the imposition of a two year sentence,
the minimum sentence for a second degree felony. Id. at 5. The trial court followed the
State’s recommendation and imposed a five-year sentence. Id. at 6-7.
{¶6} Appellant subsequently filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, which
the trial court overruled.
{¶7} Defendant-Appellant now appeals, assigning the following error for review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ACCEPTED THE STATE’S
RECOMMENDATION FOR A FIVE-YEAR PRISON SENTENCE WITHOUT
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2010-0048 3
EXERCISING ITS OWN JUDICIAL DISCRETION REQUIRED WHEN IMPOSING A
SENTENCE. THIS VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO HAVE A
PROPORTIONATE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY A FAIR AND NEUTRAL JUDGE AND
ALSO VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AND THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.”
I.
{¶9} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant asserts that the trial court
abused its discretion in sentencing him to the minimum sentence and for not stating its
reasons for such on the record. We disagree.
{¶10} The Ohio Supreme Court held, in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-
Ohio-856, that judicial fact finding is not required before a court imposes non-minimum,
maximum or consecutive prison terms. See, e.g., State v. Williams, Muskingum App.
No. CT2009-0006,
2009-Ohio-5296, ¶19, citing State v. Hanning, Licking App.No.
2007CA00004,
2007-Ohio-5547, ¶ 9. Subsequent to Foster, in a plurality opinion, the
Ohio Supreme Court established a two-step procedure for reviewing a felony sentence.
State v. Kalish,
120 Ohio St.3d 23,
2008-Ohio-4912,
896 N.E.2d 124. The first step is to
“examine the sentencing court's compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in
imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly
contrary to law.” Kalish at ¶ 4. If this first step is satisfied, the second step requires the
trial court's decision be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.
{¶11} In the case sub judice, the trial court stated on the record that it had
“received the presentence investigation, reviewed it thoroughly, as well as the
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2010-0048 4
sentencing memorandum as presented and filed by [Appellant] in this matter.” (Sent. T.
at 6). Furthermore, the Sentencing Entry states that the court “considered the record,
all statements, any victim impact statements, the presentence report prepared, the plea
recommendation in this matter, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing
under Ohio Revised Code § 2929.11 and its balance of seriousness and recidivism
factors under Revised Code §2929.12. (Sentencing Entry, Sept. 3, 2010).
{¶12} Appellant presently does not direct us to any significant mitigating
information in the record, instead arguing that because the trial court imposed the same
sentence as that recommended by the State, the court failed to use its discretion.
Appellant also claims that the sentence is not proportionate to the crime and that he
was therefore deprived of his rights to due process and equal protection, but Appellant
fails to support such claims with any supporting argument.
{¶13} In this case, Appellant was charged, pled and found guilty of a second
degree felony, the punishment for which is two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight
years. The trial court sentenced Appellant to five years, well within the statutory
guidelines for such offense.
{¶14} Based on our review of the record, and pursuant to Foster and Kalish, we
cannot find any evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in rendering more than
the minimum sentence under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2010-0048 5
{¶15} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶16} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of
Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Hoffman, J., concur.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES
JWW/d 0426
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2010-0048 6
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
MARCUS D. MOORE :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. CT2010-0048
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to Appellant.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES
