2022 Ohio 2801
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Javontay Clark entered global, negotiated guilty pleas across eight consolidated Montgomery County cases and was sentenced on October 8, 2021 to an agreed aggregate term of 22 years to life.
- The appeal omits one case (2020-CR-478/3), so only seven cases are before the appellate court.
- Clark raised four assignments of error: (1) trial court failed to give Reagan Tokes (R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)) notifications at sentencing for indefinite terms; (2) trial court improperly imposed prison terms and no-contact orders for the same offenses; (3) pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered due to dissatisfaction with counsel; and (4) judgment entries omitted a required consecutive-sentence finding.
- The court held the trial court failed to provide the Reagan Tokes sentencing notices at the sentencing hearing for two felonious-assault cases (2020-CR-858 and 2020-CR-2828) and remanded those cases for resentencing solely to provide the required notices.
- The court rejected Clark’s challenges to the no-contact orders (finding invited error because the orders were part of the plea), to the voluntariness of the pleas (Crim.R. 11 colloquy was adequate), and to the omission of a consecutive-sentence finding (agreed sentence made the finding unnecessary).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Clark's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Failure to give Reagan Tokes (R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)) notices at sentencing for indefinite terms | Sentencing colloquy at plea hearing satisfied notice; any omission at sentencing is harmless or already covered | Trial court failed to give the statutorily required notifications at the sentencing hearing, making the indefinite sentences contrary to law | Reversed in part and remanded for resentencing solely to provide R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notices for two felonious-assault cases (2020-CR-858, 2020-CR-2828) |
| 2) Imposition of prison terms and no-contact orders for same offenses | No-contact orders here were part of the plea agreement; court did not err in imposing them | Court erred by imposing both prison and a no-contact (community-control type) sanction for the same offenses | Overruled; no-contact orders constitute invited error because Clark agreed to them in the plea bargain |
| 3) Validity of guilty pleas given alleged requests for new counsel | Plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11(C); no specific allegations required further inquiry | Pleas were involuntary because the court ignored Clark’s expressions of dissatisfaction with counsel and didn’t inquire | Overruled; Crim.R. 11 colloquy was adequate and the court had no duty to investigate general dissatisfaction absent specific allegations |
| 4) Omission of a consecutive-sentence statutory finding from judgment entries | The consecutive terms were part of the parties’ agreed aggregate sentence, so separate findings were not required; if omission clerical, can be corrected | Omission of the statutory finding (history-of-conduct necessity) renders consecutive sentences improper | Overruled; agreed sentence authorized the partial consecutiveness so findings were unnecessary; even if needed, omission is clerical and remediable (not reversible) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2015) (a court generally may not impose a prison term and a community-control sanction for the same offense)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (failure to include a sentencing court’s orally stated findings in the entry is generally a clerical/curable error when findings were made at hearing)
- State v. Santiago, 195 Ohio App.3d 649 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (trial court’s failure to inquire into specific complaints about counsel can require further hearing; distinguished on its facts here)