3rd District Court rejects OC man’s appeal

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

LIMA — An Ohio City man recently had his drug-related conviction upheld on appeal to the Third Ohio Court of Appeals.

Because of some initial confusion during sentencing on what was agreed to between Buckner and his attorney and the prosecution, Buckner had appealed his sentence on the grounds that “the trial court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences was not supported by the court record and was contrary to law”.

Buckner was originally indicted by the Van Wert County Grand Jury on six felony counts: counts 1 and 2 were illegal manufacture of drugs, each a first-degree felony; count 3 was illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, a second-degree felony; count 4 was endangering children, a felony of the third degree; count 5 was aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree felony; and count 6 was engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, a first-degree felony.

The prosecution later filed a bill of information charging Buckner a single count of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, a second-degree felony offense.

After two attempts at a plea negotiation, all parties involved reached an agreement that Buckner would plead guilty to the bill of information count and counts 3 and 4 of the original indictment on April 3 of this year.

The other counts would then be dismissed in exchange for Buckner’s guilty plea to those three charges.

That essentially meant that he would plead guilty to two counts of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, both second-degree felonies, and one count of endangering children, a felony of the third degree.

Both parties also stipulated that Buckner would serve the second-degree felony counts consecutive to one another, while the third count would be served concurrently to the other two sentences. Buckner and his attorney, as well as the prosecution, also agreed to a stipulation that Buckner would serve a minimum of six years and a maximum of 12 years in prison on the charges.

In his appeal, Buckner, through attorney Joseph Medici, argued that no stipulated sentence existed because of “confusion prior to sentencing” and “the (judge’s) indication during sentencing that the sentences were to run concurrent(ly)”.

Buckner claimed on appeal that the confusion during sentencing negated the stipulated sentence, meaning that the court should have reviewed the consecutive sentence findings during the sentencing hearing, and in the judgment entry of sentence, which it failed to do.

Judge Vernon Preston, who wrote the decision for the appellate court, noted that the judges hearing the appeal, which also included John Willamowski and William Zimmerman, had to decide whether their court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because of the stipulated plea agreement.

Judge Preston noted that a “sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review … 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”.

Preston went on to say that the Ohio Supreme Court had decided in an earlier case that such sentences should be protected from review “precisely because the parties agreed that the sentence is appropriate”.

Preston’s opinion also noted that, while there was some initial confusion over sentencing, the confusion was cleared up later on the trial court record and Buckner later was asked whether he understood the terms of the sentence agreement, including the consecutive prison terms, to which he answered “yes, sir”.

Because of the fact that the record indicated that, during sentencing, Buckner and his attorney both indicated their agreement to the stipulated plea accord, the appeals court decided it did not have the jurisdiction to review a stipulated-agreement sentencing and dismissed the appeal.

The state was represented by County Assistant Prosecutor Kelly Rauch.