[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2018-Ohio-4114.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 106655

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

ALONZO PATTERSON

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-16-606558-A 

BEFORE: McCormack, P.J., E.T. Gallagher, J., and Jones, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 11, 2018 
[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2018-Ohio-4114.]

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Patricia J. Smith 

206 S. Meridian Street, Suite A 

Ravenna, OH 44266 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

Martin Maxwell 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2018-Ohio-4114.]

TIM McCORMACK, P.J.: 

 {¶1} Defendant-appellant Alonzo Patterson (“Patterson”) appeals his sentence. 

Because we find that Patterson’s sentence is not subject to appellate review, we affirm. 

Procedural and Substantive History 

{¶2} As this case was resolved by a plea agreement, our summary of the 

underlying facts are limited to what was placed on the record at sentencing. On May 19, 

2016, Patterson shot and killed 19-year-old Diamond Russell. Patterson had been 

hanging out with a friend at a gas station when, allegedly in response to shots fired by 

another individual, Patterson fired three shots into Russell’s back as Russell and two of 

his friends were fleeing. 

{¶3} Patterson and a codefendant were charged in a 14-count indictment with 

aggravated murder, murder, and felonious assault as to Russell, and attempted murder 

as to Russell’s friends, along with tampering with evidence, discharge of a firearm on or 

near prohibited premises, and carrying a concealed weapon. Patterson initially pleaded 

not guilty to all counts. Ultimately, a plea agreement was negotiated. 

{¶4} On May 8, 2017, Patterson pleaded guilty to an amended Count 1, 

involuntary manslaughter, with a three-year firearm specification; an amended Count 5, 

attempted murder, with a three-year firearm specification; an amended Count 7, attempted 

murder, with a three-year firearm specification; Count 9, tampering with evidence; and 

Count 12, carrying a concealed weapon. The remaining counts and specifications were 
dismissed. As part of the plea agreement, the prosecutor and defense counsel jointly 

recommended a sentence between 23 and 30 years in prison. 

{¶5} Patterson was referred for a presentence investigation report and a 

mitigation report. The court held a sentencing hearing on June 15, 2017. At 

sentencing, the prosecutor argued on behalf of a 30-year sentence, citing the particularly 

tragic nature of the offense. Defense counsel argued for a sentence at the lower end of 

the recommended range, citing Patterson’s lack of criminal history and the absence of an 

intent to harm the victim. The court also heard from the victim’s mother, Patterson’s 

mother, and Patterson himself. 

{¶6} The court imposed a sentence of 3 years for the firearm specification to be 

served prior to and consecutive to 10 years for the underlying offense in Count 1; 3 years 

for the firearm specification to be served prior to and consecutive to 9 years for the 

underlying offense in Count 5, to be served consecutive to Count 1; 3 years for the 

firearm specification to be served concurrent to Count 1, and 8 years on the underlying 

offense in Count 7 to be served concurrently to Count 1; 36 months on Count 9, to run 

concurrently; and 18 months on Count 12, also to run concurrently. Patterson’s total 

aggregate sentence was 25 years. Patterson was granted 393 days of jail time credit. 

{¶7} Patterson appeals his sentence, presenting one assignment of error for our 

review. 

Law and Analysis 
{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Patterson argues that the trial court erred by 

failing to both (1) make the required findings for consecutive sentences under R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4), and to consider mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.12(E) and (2) 

incorporate those findings into its sentencing journal entry. 

{¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08, a reviewing court may overturn the imposition of 

consecutive sentences where it “clearly and convincingly finds that ‘the record does not 

support the sentencing court’s findings’ under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or the sentence is 

‘otherwise contrary to law.’” State v. Hendricks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101864, 

2015-Ohio-2268, ¶ 9, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) through 2953.08(G)(2)(b). 

{¶10} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), however, a sentence imposed upon a 

defendant is not subject to appellate review if the sentence is authorized by law, has been 

recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and has been 

imposed by the sentencing judge. This limitation on a defendant’s ability to bring an 

appellate challenge of an agreed sentence applies equally to cases involving range 

agreements, such as this case, and cases involving specific term agreements. State v. 

Grant, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104918, 2018-Ohio-1759, ¶ 18. Further, the limitation 

applies to cases in which the sentence includes nonmandatory consecutive sentences, 

despite no specific agreement as to consecutive sentences. Id. at ¶ 24; State v. Glaze, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105519, 2018-Ohio-2184, ¶ 15. 

{¶11} Here, Patterson’s sentence was authorized by law, despite the absence of an 

explicit agreement to consecutive sentences beyond those statutorily required for firearm 
specifications. Further, it was jointly recommended. Patterson and the state 

recommended that the court impose a sentence of between 23 and 30 years. The court 

imposed a sentence of 25 years. Because his sentence was authorized by law, jointly 

recommended, and imposed by a sentencing judge, Patterson’s sentence is not subject to 

appellate review. Therefore, we affirm his sentence. 

{¶12} 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 issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court 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. 
[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2018-Ohio-4114.]

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

__________________________________________ 

TIM McCORMACK, PRESIDING JUDGE 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR