A defendant in Ohio’s Second Appellate District will serve a longer prison term than what was jointly recommended by the prosecution and defense, as the appellate court ruled the trial judge was within his rights to impose the stiffer penalty.
Andrew Scott Latham appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegally bringing a live round of ammunition onto government property (a third-degree felony) and obstructing official business (a fifth-degree felony). The core of Latham’s argument was that the trial court should have honored the parties’ joint recommendation for a total of 12 months in prison, served concurrently with an existing sentence.
However, the Court of Appeals for Ohio, Second Appellate District, disagreed, finding that the trial court acted within its legal authority when it sentenced Latham to nine months on the weapons charge and 12 months on the obstruction charge, running those two sentences consecutively, resulting in a 21-month term before considering concurrency with his existing sentence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The Plea Deal Details
The case originated from incidents in November 2024. Latham was initially indicted on four counts, including assault. Through negotiations, Latham agreed to plead guilty to the illegal conveyance of ammunition onto the Tri-County Jail grounds (stemming from an October 11 incident) and one count of obstruction (related to an incident on October 15). In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the other charges.
Crucially, both sides jointly recommended a 12-month prison sentence, to run at the same time as a 14-month sentence Latham was already serving from a Scioto County conviction.
The Trial Court Steps Outside the Recommendation
During the plea hearing, the trial court conducted a thorough colloquy, ensuring Latham understood his rights and the potential penalties. The judge explicitly warned Latham that he was *not* required to follow the joint sentencing recommendation, even if both sides agreed. Latham confirmed he understood this possibility.
Despite the agreement, the trial court rejected the 12-month recommendation. Instead, it imposed consecutive sentences for the two current offenses (nine months plus twelve months), creating the longer total term.
Appellate Review: Not Bound by Recommendations
Latham argued that the sentence was “contrary to law” because the court deviated from the agreed-upon term. His appeal focused on two factors the trial judge seemed to rely on: the fact that Latham was on community control (probation) when the offenses occurred, and the fact that a corrections officer broke his leg during an altercation involving Latham.
The appellate court addressed these points by first outlining the standards for reviewing criminal sentences under Ohio law. Appellate courts can only modify a sentence if they find “clearly and convincingly” that the record doesn’t support the necessary statutory findings, or if the sentence is “contrary to law.”
The court emphasized that trial courts retain “full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range.” Furthermore, appellate courts cannot simply substitute their judgment for the trial judge’s regarding the sentence that best complies with sentencing principles (R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12).
Regarding the specific reasons for deviating from the deal, the appellate panel found no error:
1. Being on Supervision: The court noted that R.C. 2929.12(D)(1) specifically allows courts to consider whether a defendant is more likely to commit further crimes, making the fact that Latham was on supervision highly relevant.
2. Officer Injury: Although the State clarified that Latham did not directly cause the leg-breaking injury, the court found that the judge was entitled to consider the facts surrounding the dismissed charges and uncharged conduct. The opinion detailed that Latham was involved in a significant confrontation with multiple officers at the jail, leading to injuries to two other officers (a black eye and a “busted” lip), and that Latham showed no remorse for those actions. The court cited precedent allowing judges to consider “a broad range of information,” including facts supporting dismissed charges.
Finally, the court reiterated the well-settled principle: “A trial court is not bound to accept the State’s recommended sentence in a plea agreement.” Because Latham was explicitly warned he might receive a harsher sentence than recommended, his agreement to plead guilty waived his right to later complain about the harsher sentence imposed.
In conclusion, the appellate court found Latham’s sole assignment of error without merit, affirming the trial court’s judgment.