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.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
JENNIFER HENSAL JUDGE.
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
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
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.
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.
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
(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