[Cite as State v. Pendergrass, 2012-Ohio-5186.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 98486 

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

MICHAEL PENDERGRASS

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-549687 

BEFORE: Rocco, J., Stewart, P.J., and Keough, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 8, 2012 
-iATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Carol Jackson 

3900 Cullen Drive 

Cleveland, OH 44105 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Kristin Karkutt 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: 

{¶1} In this appeal assigned to the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 

and Loc.App.R. 11.1, defendant-appellant Michael Pendergrass appeals from the sentence 

imposed by the trial court after he entered guilty pleas to charges of rape and abduction. 

{¶2} The purpose of an accelerated appeal is to allow this court to render a brief 

and conclusory opinion. App.R. 11.1(E). 

{¶3} Pendergrass presents one assignment of error. He argues that a sentence of 

ten years for his convictions was both contrary to law and an abuse of discretion. This 

court disagrees. 

{¶4} Pendergrass was indicted in this case in May 2011 on four counts for an 

incident that occurred in July 2002. He was charged with rape, two counts of 

kidnapping, and felonious assault. The first count carried a sexually violent predator 

specification (“SVP”). Both kidnapping counts contained SVPs and sexual motivation 

specifications. 

{¶5} Just before trial commenced on March 21, 2012, Pendergrass accepted the 

state’s plea offer. As outlined by the prosecutor, in exchange for Pendergrass’s guilty 

pleas, the state would delete the SVP from the rape charge, amend a charge of kidnapping 

to one of abduction without any specifications, dismiss the other two counts, and agree 

that the rape and abduction counts merged for sentencing purposes. 
{¶6} The trial court conducted a careful and thorough colloquy before it accepted 

Pendergrass’s guilty pleas. Pendergrass understood the maximum penalty for the rape 

conviction was a prison term of three to ten years. 

{¶7} The trial court obtained a presentence report and a psychiatric report prior to 

conducting the sentencing hearing. After listening to statements from the prosecutor, 

defense counsel, and Pendergrass, the trial court reflected on the purposes and principles 

of sentencing, related Pendergrass’s criminal history dating from 1996, and noted that 

Pendergrass currently had “three active warrants” from area municipal courts. The trial 

court commented that “every time [Pendergrass] has been placed on probation by a court, 

be it federal or state, he has violated that probation and has been sentenced to prison as a 

result.” 

{¶8} The court further noted that the victim had suffered serious physical and 

psychological harm, Pendergrass had committed the offenses while on community control 

for other convictions, and Pendergrass also indicated in the presentence report that he had 

no genuine remorse for committing the offenses. The trial court stated, 

This is a situation where * * * this victim has been waiting for justice 

for almost 10 years. And thanks to modern technology that justice has 

finally come. It would not [sic] probably never have come to light but for 

the DNA test and the CODIS tests that the government runs these days that 

are opening and closing a lot of cases that would otherwise have gone 

forever as unsolved crimes, be it rapes or homicides or kidnappings. 

And so in this case the defendant was able to stay out for ten years while the victim 

in this matter suffered * * * . 

{¶9} The trial court noted that the state had elected to proceed on the rape charge, and imposed a 

sentence of ten years. 
{¶10} Pendergrass argues in his sole assignment of error that the sentence should be reversed 

because the trial court considered improper matters rather than focusing on the relevant statutory 

factors. Based upon the foregoing facts, this court disagrees. 

{¶11} Citing State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, as the 

touchstone for appellate analysis, this court faced a similar argument in State v. Balta, 8th Dist. No. 

97755, 2012-Ohio-3462. Pendergrass’s “argument is expressly contradicted by the record.” Id. at ¶ 9. 

 The term imposed on Pendergrass was within the statutory limits applicable at the time the offenses 

were committed, and the trial court provided a cogent and thoughtful explanation for choosing the 

maximum term. Thus, Pendergrass’s sentence is neither contrary to law nor an abuse of discretion. 

Id.

{¶12} Pendergrass’s assignment of error, accordingly, is overruled. 

{¶13} His sentence is 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. The defendant’s convictions 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. 
___________________________________ 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE 

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR