Court Opinion

ID: 9953304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 19:11:03.391754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:49.512938
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Sylvester, 2024-Ohio-1041.]

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                    TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio,                                        :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                  :
                                                                      No. 23AP-296
v.                                                    :            (C.P.C. No. 20CR-3727)

Kareem J. Sylvester,                                  :           (REGULAR CALENDAR)

                 Defendant-Appellant.                 :

                                                D E C I S I O N

                                      Rendered on March 21, 2024

                 On brief: G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and
                 Kimberly M. Bond, for appellee.

                 On brief: Bellinger & Donahue, and Kerry M. Donahue, for
                 appellant.

                   APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
LELAND, J.
        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Kareem J. Sylvester, appeals from a judgment of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas resentencing him pursuant to a remand order
from this court.
I. Facts and Procedural History
        {¶ 2} This matter arises from the April 28, 2023 sentencing entry of the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas, which the trial court issued upon remand from this court’s
decision in State v. Sylvester, 10th Dist. No. 21AP-530, 2022-Ohio-3798. We adopt from
our prior decision the discussion of the underlying criminal charges and the events of the
sentencing hearing. Id. at ¶ 2-11. Below, we outline additional facts as they pertain to the
present case.
No. 23AP-296                                                                                 2

       {¶ 3} On August 13, 2020, appellant was indicted for aggravated burglary in
violation of R.C. 2911.11 and kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01, both felonies of the
first degree. On August 17, 2021, the second day of appellant’s criminal trial, appellant
changed his original not guilty plea to a plea of guilty to the following: (1) aggravated
burglary, a felony of the first degree, and (2) abduction, a felony of the third degree and a
lesser-included offense of kidnapping. The parties agreed to a sentence of four years and
nine months in prison, and the trial court accepted the guilty plea with the caveat it “would
not be inclined to follow the recommendation if [appellant] didn’t show up” to his
sentencing hearing. (Aug. 17, 2021 Tr. at 15.) Following a sentencing hearing in which
appellant refused to cooperate until he was incarcerated at the trial court’s order, the trial
court declined to follow the joint sentencing recommendation. The trial court sentenced
appellant to eight years for aggravated burglary and two years for abduction, with the
sentences to run consecutively for a total of ten years in prison.
       {¶ 4} On appellant’s first appeal, this court agreed the trial court erred by failing to
make the requisite findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to justify consecutive sentences.
Sylvester at ¶ 21.     This court issued a limited remand to address whether the
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings supported consecutive sentences. Id. at ¶ 24. Specifically, the
remand was for “resentencing on the issue of consecutive sentences.” Id. at ¶ 25.
       {¶ 5} The trial court on remand again imposed a sentence of eight years for
aggravated burglary and two years for abduction; this time, however, the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently, resulting in a total of eight years in prison. Consequently, by
imposing concurrent rather than consecutive sentences, the trial court’s sentence on
remand had the effect of reducing appellant’s prison term from ten to eight years.
       {¶ 6} Appellant timely appeals.
II. Assignment of Error
       {¶ 7} Appellant presents the following sole assignment of error for our review:
              THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO FULLY FOLLOW THE
              INSTRUCTIONS UPON THE REMAND OF THIS CASE AND
              STILL  BREACHED    THE   CONTRACTUAL     PLEA
              AGREEMENT.
No. 23AP-296                                                                                   3

III. Analysis
       {¶ 8} In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court failed to
follow the remand instructions of Sylvester.
       {¶ 9} “It is axiomatic that an inferior court lacks jurisdiction to depart from a
superior court’s mandate.” State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz, __ Ohio
St.3d __, 2024-Ohio-200, ¶ 19, citing State ex rel. Heck v. Kessler, 72 Ohio St.3d 98, 104
(1995). In Sylvester, we found “the appropriate remedy in this case is a limited remand to
address whether the findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) support consecutive sentences.” Id.
at ¶ 24. We remanded the case to the trial court “for resentencing on the issue of
consecutive sentences.” Id. at ¶ 25. On remand, the trial court resentenced appellant, and,
rather than attempting to justify consecutive sentences, it imposed concurrent sentences.
By limiting its actions on remand to resentencing appellant, and by doing so in accordance
with R.C. 2929.41(A) and 2929.14(C)(3) and (4), the trial court fully complied with our
remand instructions. See R.C. 2929.41(A) (Absent certain exceptions, “a prison term, jail
term, or sentence of imprisonment shall be served concurrently with any other prison term,
jail term, or sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of this state.”).
       {¶ 10} Appellant also complains the trial court failed to adopt the jointly
recommended sentence included in his plea deal. This issue is barred by res judicata
because appellant already litigated this question in his initial appeal to this court. See, e.g.,
State v. Braden, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-321, 2018-Ohio-1807, ¶ 10 (“Res judicata bars the
assertion of claims against a valid, final judgment of conviction that have been raised or
could have been raised on appeal.”). Even if we could revisit the question, we would choose
simply to repeat ourselves—“ ‘a trial court is not bound by a jointly recommended
sentence.’ ” Sylvester at ¶ 23, quoting State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-
1, ¶ 28. Deviation from a jointly recommended sentence “does not establish bias or
prejudice” because it is well within the defined authority of a trial court to determine
criminal sentences. Id., citing In re Disqualification of Economous, 74 Ohio St.3d 1230,
1231 (1991). In the present case, even if res judicata did not bar appellant from raising this
issue, this court would conclude the decision to deviate from the jointly recommended
sentence was squarely within the trial court’s discretion.
No. 23AP-296                                                                         4

       {¶ 11} Thus, the trial court complied with this court’s remand instructions in
resentencing appellant to concurrent prison terms. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s
sole assignment of error.
IV. Conclusion
       {¶ 12} Having overruled appellant’s sole assignment of error, we affirm the
judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
                                                                   Judgment affirmed.
                    DORRIAN and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.