Court Opinion

ID: 9926324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 16:08:55.940252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:35.482961
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Diamond, 2024-Ohio-195.]

STATE OF OHIO                    )                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                 )ss:                  NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN                 )

STATE OF OHIO                                          C.A. No.       23CA011955

        Appellee

        v.                                             APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                       ENTERED IN THE
RONALD DIAMOND                                         COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                       COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
        Appellant                                      CASE No.   21CR104689

                                 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: January 22, 2024

        STEVENSON, Judge:

        {¶1}    Defendant-Appellant Ronald Diamond appeals from the sentence of the Lorain

County Court of Common Pleas for his aggravated murder conviction, alleging that the sentence

does not properly weigh the statutory sentencing factors. Because R.C.2953.08(D)(3) does not

permit review of the statutory factors in an aggravated murder sentence on appeal, this Court

affirms.

                                                  I.

        {¶2}    The factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in State v. Diamond, 9th

Dist. Lorain No. 22CA011837, 2023-Ohio-40 and is as follows:

                Mr. Diamond was indicted on: (1) one count of aggravated murder, in
        violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), an unclassified felony, with a three-year firearm
        specification; (2) one count of murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), an
        unclassified felony, with a three-year firearm specification; (3) two counts of
        murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), an unclassified felony, with a three-year
        firearm specification; (4) one count of felonious assault, in violation of R.C.
        2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second degree, with a three-year firearm
        specification; and (5) one count of felonious assault, in violation of R.C.
                                                  2

       2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the second degree, with a three-year firearm
       specification.

               Originally, after pleading not guilty to the indictment, Mr. Diamond
       changed his plea to no contest on each count and specification in the indictment,
       and the trial court found him guilty. Further, the trial court merged the counts as
       allied offenses of similar import, and the State elected to proceed to sentencing on
       the aggravated murder conviction. Mr. Diamond was sentenced to a prison term of
       life without parole to be served consecutively with a three-year prison term on the
       firearm specification. On August 30, 2021, the trial court issued a sentencing entry
       reflecting Mr. Diamond's plea and sentence.

Id. at ¶ 2-3. The victim in this case was Mr. Diamond’s wife of 38 years who was suffering from

a painful chronic illness. Mr. Diamond claimed that she had recently executed documents

authorizing doctors to discontinue any life-saving measures, and that he shot her to put an end to

her pain.

       {¶3}    On appeal, Mr. Diamond argued that the trial court failed to issue a final appealable

order. Id. at ¶ 4. This Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Id. at ¶ 14. Thereafter, Mr. Diamond

filed various post-judgment motions in the trial court and appealed the denial of those motions.

Mr. Diamond then moved for a delayed appeal, which this Court granted. He advances one

assignment of error for our review.

                                                  II.

                                  ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MR. DIAMOND TO LIFE
       WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IN VIOLATION OF THE
       OVERRIDING PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING AND IN
       VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

       {¶4}    We note that although Mr. Diamond states in his sole assignment of error that his

sentence violated his constitutional rights, he does not make that argument in his merit brief.

Rather, he confines his argument to the trial court’s improper weighing of the statutory factors for

sentencing found in R.C. 2953.08, 2929.11, and 2929.12. As will be explained below, because
                                                  3

Mr. Diamond has limited his argument to the statutory factors, appellate review of his sentence is

barred by R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), which provides that “[a] sentence imposed for aggravated murder

or murder pursuant to sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 of the Revised Code is not subject to review

under this section.” Mr. Diamond’s sentence fits within this prohibition as his sentence was

imposed pursuant to his conviction under R.C. 2929.03.

       {¶5}    As this Court previously stated,

       [i]n general, a defendant who is convicted of a felony may appeal his sentence on
       the basis that it is contrary to law. See R.C. 2953.08(A)(4). If the sentence is one
       ‘imposed for aggravated murder or murder pursuant to [R.C.] 2929.02 to 2929.06,’
       however, it ‘is not subject to review under [R.C. 2953.08].’ R.C. 2953.08(D)(3).
       The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that ‘R.C. 2953.08(D) clearly precludes
       review of individual murder sentences imposed pursuant to [those sections] * * *.’
       State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5, 2005-Ohio-3095, ¶ 19.

State v. McCarley, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28657, 2018-Ohio-4685, ¶ 37.

       {¶6}    In State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309, 2020-Ohio-6803, the Supreme Court of

Ohio “examined the limitations set forth in R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) relating to appellate review of

sentences imposed under R.C. 2929.03.” State v. Blouir, 9th Dist. Summit No. 30066, 2022-Ohio-

1222, ¶ 15. The Patrick Court concluded that “R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does not preclude an appeal of

a sentence for aggravated murder or murder that is based on constitutional grounds.” Patrick at ¶

22. Accord State v. Ramsay, 9th Dist. Medina No. 19CA0016-M, 2021-Ohio-2870, ¶ 10

(“Regarding Patrick, the Ohio Supreme determined that Section 2953.08(D)(3) does not preclude

a court of appeals from considering the appeal of a juvenile under Section 2953.02 who has been

sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on constitutional challenges to a sentence.”)

       {¶7}    As previously noted, Mr. Diamond does not challenge his sentence on

constitutional grounds. His argument is that in his case, the factors found in R.C. 2953.08, 2929.11,

and 2929.12 do not weigh in favor of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Thus, as
                                                 4

explained above, Mr. Diamond made an argument that this Court is not authorized by statute to

review. McCarley at ¶ 36-38 (we declined to address Defendant’s argument that his aggravated

murder sentence does not comport with former R.C. 2929.03 because R.C. 2953.08(D)(3)

precludes review of individual murder sentences imposed under former R.C. 2929.03); see also

State v. Harper, 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 21CA000019, 2022-Ohio-1966, ¶ 46 (trial court's sentence

was based on an improper weighing of the statutory factors, and as such, pursuant to R.C.

2953.08(D)(3), the Fifth District was without statutory jurisdiction to review appellant's sentence).

Accordingly, Diamond’s assignment of error is overruled.

                                                III.

       {¶8}    Diamond’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Lorain County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                                Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
                                         5

      Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                             SCOT STEVENSON
                                             FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, P. J.
FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

GIOVANNA V. BREMKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

J.D. TOMLINSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and LINDSEY C. POPROCKI, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Appellee.