[Cite as State v. Carrington, 2012-Ohio-4717.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97769
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
ANTWON CARRINGTON
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-549438
BEFORE: Kilbane, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 11, 2012
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Ryan J. Bokoch
Law Offices of Ryan J. Bokoch, LLC
4791 Memphis Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44144
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Ma’rion D. Horhn
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center - 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
{¶1} This appeal is a companion case arising out of the same events as contained
in State v. Parker, 8th Dist. No. 97841.
{¶2} Defendant-appellant, Antwon Carrington (“Carrington”), appeals his
sentence. Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirm.
{¶3} In May 2011, Carrington and two codefendants, Corey Parker (“Parker”)
and Emmanuel Scott (“Scott”), were charged in an 11-count indictment resulting from the
robbery of a pet store in Cleveland. Count 1 charged Carrington with aggravated
robbery. Count 2 charged him with aggravated burglary. Counts 3-5 charged him with
kidnapping. Counts 6-8 charged him with felonious assault.1 Count 9 charged him with
carrying a concealed weapon, and Count 11 charged him with theft.
{¶4} In September 2011, codefendants, Parker and Scott, pled guilty.
Carrington proceeded to a jury trial on October 31, 2011. On November 2, 2011, before
the jury was empaneled and testimony commenced, Carrington accepted a plea
agreement. Pursuant to this agreement, Carrington pled guilty to an amended count of
felonious assault, without the firearm specifications. The remaining counts were nolled.
Carrington was referred to the probation department for a presentence investigation and
report. The matter proceeded to sentencing on November 30, 2011, at which the trial
1Each of Counts 1-8 carried one- and three-year firearm specifications.
court sentenced Carrington to eight years in prison.
{¶5} It is from this order that Carrington appeals, raising the following two
assignments of error for review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE
The trial court erred by failing to apply the purposes of felony sentencing
pursuant to [House Bill 86.]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO
The trial court erred by imposing a maximum sentence on [Carrington.]
{¶6} The General Assembly, through the enactment of House Bill 86 (“H.B.
86”), recently amended Ohio’s sentencing statutes. Because H.B. 86 became effective
on September 30, 2011, and Carrington was sentenced on November 30, 2011, the trial
court was required to sentence him under the new provisions.
{¶7} In reviewing a felony sentence, we take note of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which
provides in pertinent part:
The court hearing an appeal * * * shall review the record, including the
findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing
court.
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence
that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand
the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court’s
standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this
division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under
division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of
section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code,
whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶8} In addition, a sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated
to achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11:
(1) “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others” and (2) “to punish
the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those
purposes.” Id. at (A). The sentence imposed shall also be “commensurate with and not
demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact upon the victim,
and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar
offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B). Furthermore, R.C. 2929.12 provides a nonexhaustive list
of factors a trial court must consider when determining the seriousness of the offense and
the likelihood that the offender will commit future offenses.
{¶9} Carrington argues that the trial court failed to consider the purposes of R.C.
2929.11 when it did not address the issue of “minimum sanctions without imposing
unnecessary burden.” He further argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it
failed to consider the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and imposed a maximum
sentence of eight years in prison. We disagree.
{¶10} The trial court in the instant case properly considered all required factors
and found that Carrington’s sentence is consistent with the purposes of R.C. 2929.11. At
the sentencing hearing, the court stated that it considered the principles and purposes of
felony sentencing, the statutes, and the appropriate recidivism and seriousness factors.
Carrington was 20 years old at the time of the robbery. The court noted that the robbery
was extremely dangerous and serious, and it could have ended with the loss of life. The
entire robbery was recorded on video. The video captures Carrington entering the pet
store with Parker and Scott. Carrington points to Scott, telling him what items to take
from the store. Scott then goes to the back of the store to locate the victims, with a gun
in his hand. Scott fired shots and the store owner fired back, shooting Scott. Carrington
then took money from the cash register and ran out of the pet store. Carrington also took
the gun that was used in the robbery. He refused to give detectives any information
regarding the location of the gun and the whereabouts of the money.
{¶11} Additionally, the trial court considered the harm suffered by the victims and
that the offense was committed as part of organized criminal activity. The court further
considered the risk assessment tool, which was completed as part of the presentence
investigation ordered by the trial court. This assessment considered Carrington’s
criminal history, education, employment, financial situation, family and social support,
neighborhood problems, substance abuse, peer associations, criminal attitudes, and
behavioral problems. The risk assessment concluded that Carrington was at “high risk”
to reoffend. Having clearly delineated its considerations when imposing Carrington’s
sentence, we find that the trial court properly complied with the mandates of H.B. 86.
{¶12} Accordingly, the first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶13} Judgment is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common
pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR