[Cite as State v. Price, 2023-Ohio-2810.]

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, O P I N I O N

 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

-2-

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. 
Case No. 3-23-04

-3-

{¶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, 148 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-2696, 69 N.E.3d 

627. 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 
Case No. 3-23-04

-4-

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, 2013-Ohio-1736, ¶ 11 quoting State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5, 2005-

Ohio-3095, ¶ 25, 829 N.E.2d 690. 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