[Cite as State v. Wright, 2011-Ohio-3583.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 95634

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

WILLIAM WRIGHT

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-534039 

BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Blackmon, P.J., and Boyle, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 21, 2011 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Eric Norton 

Norton Law Firm Co., L.P.A. 

12434 Cedar Road 

Suite 6 

Cleveland, Ohio 44106 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Maxwell M. Martin 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ALSO LISTED

William Wright 

Inmate No. A591-063 

Richland Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 8107 

Mansfield, Ohio 44901 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.: 

{¶ 1} Appellant, William Wright, brings this appeal challenging his 

four-year prison sentence for having weapons while under disability and child 

endangerment, and the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

After a thorough review of the record and law, we affirm appellant’s sentence 

and decline to address his other assigned error. 
{¶ 2} The record in this case is sparse, but the following facts were 

gleaned from appellant’s affidavit, various pleadings, and journal entries. 

On February 5, 2010, appellant was working with co-defendant, Loren Webb, 

at a recording studio appellant had set up at the home of his girlfriend, 

Felishia Robinson, where appellant also resided. A Cleveland police officer 

posing as a Federal Express employee delivered a package to the address, and 

Webb signed for and accepted the package. A few minutes later, Cleveland 

police officers entered the home. Appellant avers that he, Webb, and 

Robinson were placed in handcuffs. Officers showed appellant that the 

package Webb had signed for contained marijuana. Appellant further stated 

that a police officer asked him if there was anything in the house they should 

know about. He told the officer about some guns located in the attic. 

According to appellant, these guns were secured behind two locked doors and 

stored in a locked gun safe. Appellant averred that he did not have a key to 

the doors or the safe. 

{¶ 3} Appellant was arrested and on, March 4, 2010, indicted along 

with Webb for drug trafficking, drug possession, possession of criminal tools, 

and individually for having weapons while under disability and child 

endangerment. As part of a plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to having 

weapons while under disability and child endangerment, and the remaining 

counts were dismissed. On July 28, 2010, appellant was sentenced to a 
four-year term of incarceration and a $250 fine for having a weapon while 

under disability and fined $250 for child endangerment. Appellant was 

ordered to forfeit two guns, and the court also suspended his driver’s license 

until January 28, 2011. 

{¶ 4} Appellant then appealed from his sentence, including the 

sentencing entry, in his notice of appeal. After filing this notice, he filed a 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea with the trial court on October 7, 2010. 

The trial court denied this motion on October 13, 2010 without holding a 

hearing. Appellant also assigns an error related to this denial, but failed to 

separately appeal it or amend his notice of appeal. 

Law and Analysis 

Withdrawal of Plea 

{¶ 5} Appellant first argues that “[t]he trial court abused its discretion 

in denying [his] motion to withdraw guilty plea, thereby violating his rights to 

substantive and procedural due process guaranteed by Article I, Section 10 of 

the Ohio Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

United States Constitution.” However, appellant’s notice of appeal does not 

include the journal entry denying this motion. Appellant failed to separately 

appeal this issue. 

{¶ 6} App.R. 3(D) specifies that a notice of appeal “shall designate the 

judgment, order or part thereof apealed [sic] from[.]” In Parks v. Baltimore 
& Ohio RR. (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 426, 428, 602 N.E.2d 674, this court noted 

that it had previously held that a court of appeals is “without jurisdiction to 

review a judgment or order which is not designated in the appellant’s notice 

of appeal.” Id., citing Schloss v. McGinness (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 96, 97-98, 

474 N.E.2d 666. This court has applied this holding to cases similar to the 

one here. See State v. Kennedy, Cuyahoga App. No. 79143, 2002-Ohio-42; 

State v. Millhouse, Cuyahoga App. No. 79910, 2002-Ohio-2255, ¶51-52. 

Appellant failed to amend his notice of appeal according to the procedures set 

forth in App.R. 3(F) or file a separate notice from the denial of his motion to 

withdraw his plea. 

{¶ 7} Because this assignment of error addresses issues outside the 

scope of the present appeal, it will not be addressed. 

Length of Sentence

{¶ 8} Appellant next argues that “[t]he trial court abused its discretion 

by sentencing [him] to a four-year prison term on his conviction for one count 

of having weapons while under disability, thereby violating his rights to 

substantive and procedural due process and cruel and unusual punishment 

guaranteed by Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution and the Fifth, 

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” 

{¶ 9} This court reviews sentencing errors under the two-prong 

approach set forth in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 
N.E.2d 124. See State v. Brunning, Cuyahoga App. No. 95376, 

2011-Ohio-1936, ¶16, fn. 2. Under Kalish, we first review whether the 

sentence is clearly contrary to law. Our review of this issue is focused on the 

permissible punishments for a given charge and applicable rules and statutes 

to determine whether the sentence falls within those bounds. Id at ¶25. If 

it is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law, we review the sentence for 

an abuse of discretion. Id. 

{¶ 10} Appellant pled guilty to possessing weapons while under 

disability, a third degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. 

R.C. 2923.13(B); R.C. 2929.14(A)(3). The court also imposed a $250 fine, 

which is allowed under R.C. 2929.18(A)(3)(c). The four-year prison term falls 

within the permissible penalty for a third degree felony; therefore, it is not 

clearly contrary to law. 

{¶ 11} The trial court also suspended appellant’s driver’s license until 

January 28, 2011, which is not provided for by statute for a 

weapon-under-disability conviction. This portion of appellant’s sentence is 

contrary to law. While R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that this court may 

“increase, reduce or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the 

sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” 

upon finding it contrary to law, that part of appellant’s sentence that is 

contrary to law has expired. Any remedy granted by this court would have 
no effect. Therefore, the trial court’s error in suspending appellant’s drivers 

license is moot. 

{¶ 12} The remainder of appellant’s sentence is not clearly contrary to 

law. Therefore, we proceed under the second prong of Kalish to determine 

whether the trial court abused its discretion in crafting appellant’s sentence. 

{¶ 13} The purposes and principles for felony sentencing are set forth in 

R.C. 2929.11, and R.C. 2929.12 gives trial courts guidance in applying these 

goals. Appellant urges this court to review the sentencing transcript “to 

determine whether the trial court ever expressly states that it considered the 

purposes of” these statutes. However, appellant failed to provide a copy of 

the sentencing transcript.1 All we are left with to review is the sentencing 

entry, which specifically states: “The court considered all required factors of 

the law. The court finds that prison is consistent with the purpose of R.C. 

2929.11.” In the absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, we must 

uphold these pronouncements and find that the trial court considered the 

purposes and principles of felony sentencing and did not abuse its discretion. 

{¶ 14} Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled. 

 1 Appellant filed a motion to supplement the record, which was granted by 

this court on February 22, 2011, but it appears that appellant failed to file the 

transcript. Appellant is tasked with providing the record for this court’s review 

and, in the absence of such a record, this court must presume regularity of the 

proceedings below. In re Guardianship of Muehrcke, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 85087 

and 85183, 2005-Ohio-2627, ¶15-16. 
Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from 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. 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. 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and 

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR