Court Opinion

ID: 9377987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 15:08:08.296126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.381493
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Holman, 2023-Ohio-716.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

                Plaintiff-Appellee,               :
                                                           No. 111735
                v.                                :

AMEER HOLMAN,                                     :

                Defendant-Appellant.              :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 9, 2023

         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                            Case No. CR-21-660853-A

                                            Appearances:

                Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                Attorney, and Carson M. Strang and Eben McNair,
                Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

                Patituce & Associates, LLC, Megan M. Patituce, and
                Mallorie A. Thomas, for appellant.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:

                  Defendant-appellant Ameer Holman (“Holman”) appeals from his

sentence for involuntary manslaughter and felonious assault following a guilty plea.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural History

               The underlying case arose from events that occurred on April 26,

2021. Holman, then a 16-year-old student at Bedford High School in Bedford, Ohio,

left school around 2:30 p.m. and began to walk to his home on McKinley Street. Two

vehicles carrying seven other students left the high school around the same time and

proceeded to pull over and confront Holman on McKinley Street. Royce Hamilton

(“Hamilton”) got out of one of the vehicles, confronted Holman, and got back in the

front passenger seat of the vehicle. Holman continued walking down the street and

the vehicles pulled up to him again. Holman then fired three rounds into one of the

vehicles, shooting Hamilton in the head. Hamilton was taken to the hospital, placed

on life support, and died several days later as a result of the gunshot wound.

               As a result of this incident, on June 30, 2021, a Cuyahoga County

Grand Jury indicted Holman on 11 counts: Count 1, murder in violation of R.C.

2903.02(A); Count 2, murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B); Count 3, involuntary

manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.04(A); Count 4, discharge of a firearm on or

near prohibited premises in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3); Count 5, felonious

assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1); Count 6, felonious assault in violation of

R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); Count 7, felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2);

Count 8, felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); Count 9, tampering

with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1); Count 10, carrying a concealed

weapon in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2); and Count 11, improperly handling

firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B). Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
and 8 carried one- and three-year firearm specifications. All counts except Count 9

carried forfeiture specifications.

               Holman initially pleaded not guilty to the indictment. On April 4,

2022, the state of Ohio moved to amend Count 1 of the indictment to involuntary

manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.04(A), a felony of the first degree, with the

underlying felony offense of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises

in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A), with one- and three-year firearm specifications.

The state further moved to amend Count 7 of the indictment, felonious assault, to

include the name of two victims.

               Holman pleaded guilty to amended Count 1 with one- and three-year

firearm specifications and amended Count 7. The state and defense counsel jointly

recommended a sentence of 15 to 20 years to the court. The court referred Holman

to the probation department for preparation of a presentence-investigation report.

               On June 15, 2022, the court held a sentencing hearing. The assistant

prosecuting attorney, defense counsel, Holman, and Hamilton’s parents addressed

the court. Defense counsel requested a 15-year sentence; the state requested a 20-

year sentence. On Count 1, the court sentenced Holman to a minimum of 11 years

and a maximum of 16 years and six months. On Count 7, the court sentenced

Holman to three years, to run consecutively to the sentence on Count 1. The two

three-year firearm specifications were ordered to be served consecutive to each

other and to the sentences on the underlying offenses, for an aggregate sentence of

20 to 25.5 years. The court also credited Holman with 415 days of jail-time credit.
              Holman appeals, presenting a single assignment of error for our

review:

      The trial court erred when it failed to consider the youth factors prior
      to sentencing Mr. Holman as set forth in R.C. 2929.19 and State v.
      Patrick.

Legal Analysis

              In Holman’s sole assignment of error, he argues that the trial court

erred when it sentenced him without considering his youth pursuant to R.C. 2929.19

and State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309, 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952.

Specifically, Holman asserts that the trial court failed to state exactly how it

considered youth and other mitigating factors.

              R.C. 2953.08 governs a defendant’s right to appeal a sentence. State

v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108708, 2020-Ohio-3454, ¶ 21, citing State v.

Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-2696, 69 N.E.3d 627, ¶ 15.                 R.C.

2953.08(D)(1) provides that “[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.” This court has repeatedly found that an agreement

to a sentencing range, as opposed to a specific term of incarceration, is a jointly

recommended sentence for purposes of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Id. at ¶ 22, citing State

v. Grant, 2018-Ohio-1759, 111 N.E.3d 791, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.). “‘So long as the sentence

imposed within a jointly recommended sentencing range is authorized by law, the

sentence is not reviewable on appeal.’” Id.; see also State v. Brown, 2019-Ohio-
1455, 129 N.E.3d 524, ¶ 23 (1st Dist.); State v. Ramsey, 5th Dist. Licking No. 16-CA-

91, 2017-Ohio-4398, ¶ 15-17; State v. Essinger, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26593,

2016-Ohio-4977, ¶ 10; State v. Connors, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26721, 2016-

Ohio-3195, ¶ 4; State v. Scurles, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-07-1108 and L-07-1109,

2008-Ohio-2480, ¶ 7-9.

               Here, the parties do not dispute that they jointly agreed upon a range

of 15 to 20 years, and the sentencing range is within the statutory ranges for the

offenses. Further, while Holman argues that he should be resentenced because the

trial court allegedly failed to properly consider his youth, this argument does not

allege that his sentence is somehow not “authorized by law” pursuant to R.C.

2953.08(D)(1).     Because Holman’s sentence was within the recommended

sentencing range and was authorized by law, it is not reviewable on appeal pursuant

to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Finally, we note that the record reflects that the trial court

considered the R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b) factors including Holman’s age, his family and

home environment, and circumstances of the offense. Therefore, Holman’s sole

assignment of error is overruled.

               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.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR