.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
Nos. 102865, 102866, 102878
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ANTONIO WELCH
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-13-578497-A, CR-14-582028-A, and CR-14-584227-A
BEFORE: Blackmon, J., McCormack, P.J., and Boyle, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 3, 2016
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Brian R. McGraw
55 Public Square
Suite 2100
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Marc D. Bullard
Assistant County Prosecutor
9th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:
{¶1} Antonio Welch (“Welch”) appeals his eight-year prison sentence for drug
trafficking and various related offenses in three underlying criminal cases and assigns the
following error for our review:
I. The trial court did not adequately or sufficiently explain/justify decisions to
impose consecutive sentences. In addition, the trial court misunderstood at what
point the offender’s danger to the public is actionable to impose a consecutive
sentence.
{¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm. The apposite facts
follow.
{¶3} On March 6, 2015, the trial court sentenced Welch to an aggregate term of eight
years in prison, a term that was jointly recommended and agreed to by the state and Welch. The
breakdown of Welch’s sentence is as follows: three years in prison in State v. Welch, Cuyahoga
C.P. No. CR-13-578497-A (March 6, 2015); two years in prison in State v. Welch, Cuyahoga C.P.
No. CR-14-582028-A (March 6, 2015); and six years in prison in State v. Welch, Cuyahoga C.P.
No. CR-14-584227-A (March 6, 2015). The court ordered that the sentences in Case Nos.
CR-14-582028-A and CR-13-584227-A run consecutively, but concurrent with the sentence in
Case No. CR-13-578497-A.
{¶4} Welch appealed this sentence, and on October 27, 2015, this court remanded all
three cases for correction of the judgments of conviction pursuant to App.R. 9(E). On December
15, 2015, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying the disposition of two counts, and
this appeal was reinstated.
{¶5} R.C. 2953.08 authorizes defendants to appeal felony sentences upon various
grounds. However, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a “sentence imposed upon a defendant is not
subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended
jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.”
See also State v. Pannell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89352,
2008-Ohio-956
. Upon review of
Welch’s plea and sentencing hearings, we find that all three elements of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) are
met in the case at hand.
{¶6} Welch does not argue that his sentence is unauthorized by law. Rather, Welch
argues that the court did not adequately comply with the R.C. 2929.14(C) findings prior to
imposing consecutive sentences. Pertinent to the consecutive portions of his prison terms, Welch
was sentenced to 12 months each for two, fifth-degree felonies, 36 months for various third- and
fourth-degree felonies, and three years for a first-degree felony. All of these terms are authorized
by R.C. 2929.14(A).
{¶7} At Welch’s plea hearing, the prosecutor, Welch’s attorney, and Welch himself
acknowledged on the record that they were agreeing to and jointly recommending to the court an
eight-year prison sentence. Furthermore, at Welch’s sentencing hearing, the court imposed an
eight-year prison sentence, stating that the court was “willing to agree and abide by the eight-year
recommendation.”
{¶8} Accordingly, we are precluded from reviewing Welch’s prison sentence, and his
sole assigned error is overruled.
{¶9} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to 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.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules
of Appellate Procedure.
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE
TIM McCORMACK, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE J., CONCUR
