Agreed sentence R.C. 2929.12 R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a sentence is not subject to review on appeal if that sentence is authorized by law has been recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution and is imposed by a sentencing judge. In such cases, the parties have already determined what the appropriate sentence is. Since the parties have agreed on the appropriateness of the jointly recommended sentence, the trial court need not consider the R.C. 2929.12 factors in imposing a jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law.
.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 3-23-04
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
APRIL PRICE, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 22-CR-0372
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 14, 2023
APPEARANCES:
Autumn D. Adams for Appellant
Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee
Case No. 3-23-04
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant April Price (“Price”) brings this appeal from the
judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Crawford County convicting her of one
count of aggravated trafficking in drugs and sentencing her to 36 months in prison.
On appeal, Price argues that the trial court erred by not considering the mitigating
factors when sentencing her. For the reasons that follow, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On November 15, 2022, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted Price
on two counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1),
(C)(1)(c), felonies of the third degree. On January 24, 2023, Price and the State
reached a plea agreement. The terms of the agreement included the following.
The Defendant will be entering a plea of guilty to Count 1, Aggravated
Trafficking in Drugs, a 3rd degree felony.
The defendant [sic] be sentenced to 36 months in prison, with jail time
credit, on this case consecutive to 12 months in prison on case number
22 CR 402, for a total aggregate sentence of 48 months in prison.
Pay a DRUG FINE O.R.C. 2929.18(B) of $5,000.00 on Count 1 plus
the costs of this action and pay costs of supervision.
…
In exchange for Defendant’s change in plea to Count 1, the State will
request the remaining charges in this case be dismissed.
Doc. 18 at 2-3. The trial court accepted the guilty plea. The trial court then
proceeded immediately to sentencing and imposed the agreed sentence.
-2-
Case No. 3-23-04
{¶3} Price appeals from this sentence and on appeal raises the following
assignment of error.
Price was sentenced without consideration of the mitigating
factors.
Price’s sole assignment of error alleges that the trial court failed to consider
the mitigating factors of R.C. 2929.12. However, a review of the record shows that
the sentence imposed was identical to the one to which Price agreed in the plea
agreement. “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.”
R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).
{¶4} In this case Price appears to argue that the sentence was not authorized
by law because the trial court did not consider the factors listed in R.C 2929.12.
There is no question that the sentence imposed was within the statutory range and
no findings were required in order to impose the sentences consecutively since the
parties agreed to it. State v. Sergent,
. A review of the record shows that the trial court indicated that it did consider
the statutory factors.
{¶5} Even if this Court were to find that the trial court’s statements regarding
its consideration of the statutory factors was insufficient, the reason why the factors
must be considered is to provide guidance to the court in determining the appropriate
-3-
Case No. 3-23-04
sentence to fulfill the purposes and principles of sentencing. R.C. 2929.12. In the
cases where there is an agreed sentence, the parties have already determined what
that appropriate sentence is and the need for the trial court to make that
determination is no longer necessary as the purpose of the consideration is already
fulfilled. Thus, the sentence was authorized by law.
{¶6} The sentence in this case was jointly agreed upon by both Price and the
State. The trial court imposed the agreed sentence. As discussed above, the
sentence was authorized by law. “In discussing jointly recommended sentences, the
Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that ‘[t]he General Assembly intended a jointly
agreed-upon sentence to be protected from review precisely because the parties
agreed that the sentence is appropriate.’” State v. Morris, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-12-
17,
. Thus, the sentence is not reviewable pursuant to
R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶7} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Crawford County
is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.
/hls
-4-
