State v. Gartrell

[Cite as State v. Gartrell, 2026-Ohio-4453.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 9-26-25 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. OPINION AND CURTIS L. GARTRELL, JR., JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 25-CR-481 Judgment Affirmed Date of Decision: November 9, 2026 APPEARANCES: William T. Cramer for Appellant Case No. 9-26-25 WILLAMOWSKI, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Curtis Gartrell (“Gartrell”) brings this appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County finding him guilty of one count of possession of cocaine and sentencing him to a prison term of 7 years to 10.5 years. Gartrell claims on appeal that the State (“the State”) violated the terms of the plea agreement and that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea as a result. {¶2} On December 3, 2025, the Marion County Grand Jury indicted Gartrell on one count of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(4)(f), a felony of the first degree. The charge carried two specifications: major drug offender and forfeiture of money in a drug case. On February 25, 2026, a supplemental indictment was filed adding a count for aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(c), a felony of the second degree. This count contained a specification for forfeiture of money in a drug case. {¶3} On March 3, 2026, Gartrell and the State agreed that Gartrell would enter a plea of guilty to the possession of cocaine charge and the forfeiture of money specification. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss count two and the major drug offender specification and the State would cap its sentencing argument at 8 years. At the change of plea hearing, the trial court notified Gartrell that the court controlled the sentence and that the court was not required to follow any sentence -2- Case No. 9-26-25 recommendation. The trial court also indicated that the State would cap their sentencing argument at 8 years. Gartrell indicated that he understood and stated that he wished to enter the plea. The trial court then accepted the guilty plea and found Gartrell to be guilty. {¶4} The trial court held the sentencing hearing on March 20, 2026. Prior to the hearing, the State filed a sentencing memorandum in which it requested the trial court to impose a mandatory indefinite prison term of 7 to 10.5 years. Gartrell also filed a sentencing memorandum requesting that the trial court impose a minimum sentence. At the hearing, the State requested the trial court to impose a prison term of 7 to 10.5 years. No objection to this recommendation was raised by Gartrell at the hearing. After statements by Gartrell and his sister, the trial court made the following statement. The Court: I appreciate your making a statement. To be honest with you, prior to your statement and Miss Jones’ statement, I was going to give you more than seven years. So I think you did yourself a favor by talking. I got to know a little bit better of you. The other thing you’re gonna get some credit for is you did accept responsibility for this case straight up, and once we got Mr. Thompson back situated where he needed to be, you resolved this case timely. And so, I have factored in those things. But, to be honest with you, with your record, I think the seven years is generous. However, I think it’s more fair than I thought after your family made a statement, and you made a statement. So I want you to understand that you probably would have left here with more than seven had your family not spoke and showed up here, and your statement yourself. -3- Case No. 9-26-25 So with that said, I am going to impose a mandatory prison sentence in this case of seven years. That is an indefinite prison sentence. You will have an indefinite portion of . . . 10 and a half. Sentencing Tr. 14-15. Gartrell filed a notice of appeal from this judgment and on appeal raised the following assignment of error. The prosecution’s breach of the plea agreement produced an unconstitutional guilty plea that was not entered knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily. {¶5} Gartrell’s sole assignment of error claims that the State breached the plea agreement by arguing for a sentence range from 7 to 10.5 years when the agreement was that the recommendation would be capped at 8 years. A review of the record shows that the sentence recommendation was filed by the State in a memorandum on March 18, 2026. Gartrell filed a sentencing recommendation two days later and did not raise the issue of a violation of the plea agreement. At the sentencing hearing, the State again argued for an indefinite sentence of 7 to 10.5 years. Gartrell did not object or raise a claim that such a recommendation would violate the plea agreement. As a result of Gartrell’s failure to object and raise the issue before the trial court, he has forfeited all but plain error related to the alleged breach on appeal. State v. Hartley, 2014-Ohio-4536 (3d Dist.). {¶6} The standard of review under plain error "is a strict one." State v. Murphy, 2001-Ohio-112. "[A]n alleged error 'does not constitute a plain error or defect under Crim.R. 52(B) unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.'" We have warned that the plain error rule -4- Case No. 9-26-25 is not to be invoked lightly. "Notice of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice." Id. Under the plain error standard, "the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a plain error affected his substantial rights" and "[e]ven if the defendant satisfies this burden, an appellate court has discretion to disregard the error and should correct it only to 'prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" State v. Perry, 2004- Ohio-297, ¶ 14, quoting State v. Barnes, 2002-Ohio-68. "Even constitutional rights 'may be lost as finally as any others by a failure to assert them at the proper time.'" Murphy, supra at 532, quoting State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56, 62, (1968). {¶7} Here, the record shows that Gartrell raised no objection to how the State followed the plea agreement prior to appeal. The trial court imposed the sentence it thought was best, not just the one recommended by the State. Gartrell was warned that the trial court was not bound by the sentence recommendation before he entered the plea. Based upon the record before us, this Court does not find that the sentence imposed would have been any different had the State recommended a shorter sentence. The trial court indicated that in its opinion, the seven year sentence was already a downward deviation from what it was thinking. {¶8} Additionally, the minimum sentence recommended and imposed was only seven years, less than the eight year cap. The determination whether the sentence will exceed the seven years is solely dependent upon the choices made by Gartrell in prison. The decision whether to hold Gartrell beyond the minimum is -5- Case No. 9-26-25 based upon Gartrell’s conduct in prison. Thus, the record does not show any prejudice to Gartrell from the State’s recommendation of a minimum sentence of seven years. As there was no prejudice shown, there is no plain error. The assignment of error is overruled. {¶9} Having found no error prejudicial to appellant in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County is affirmed. Judgment Affirmed ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur. -6- Case No. 9-26-25 JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the judgment for costs. It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R. 27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30. John R. Willamowski, Judge William R. Zimmerman, Judge Juergen A. Waldick, Judge DATED: /hls -7-