Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Williams

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

September 6, 2017

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
MARCELL WILLIAMS Appellant

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2016 02 0513 (B)

          KRISTEN KOWALSKI, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          JENNIFER HENSAL JUDGE.

         {¶1} Marcell Williams appeals his sentences for felonious assault and having weapons while under disability from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court reverses.

         I.

         {¶2} Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to two counts of felonious assault, which included firearm specifications, and one count of having weapons while under disability. The trial court sentenced him to three years for each felonious assault count and three years for each specification. It ordered those sentences to run consecutive to each other, but concurrent to a three year sentence it imposed for the having weapons while under disability offense, for a total prison term of twelve years. Although the court included the reasons consecutive sentences were necessary in its sentencing entry, it did not state them on the record at the sentencing hearing. Mr. Williams has appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial court failed to make the required findings before imposing consecutive sentences.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FAILING TO MAKE REQUIRED FINDINGS ON THE RECORD PRIOR TO SENTENCING MR. WILLIAMS TO SERVE CONSECUTIVE TERMS IN PRISON.

         {¶3} Mr. Williams argues that the trial court failed to make the findings required to impose consecutive sentences under Revised Code Section 2929.14(C)(4). In reviewing a felony sentence, "[t]he appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion." R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). "[A]n appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence" that: (1) "the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes[, ]" or (2) "the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that "which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established." Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

         {¶4} Section 2929.14(C)(4) provides that, "[i]f multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, " the sentencing court may require the offender to serve the terms consecutively "if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public[.]" The court must also find "any" of the following:

(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under postrelease control for a prior offense.
(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.