State v. Gatewood, 2022 Ohio 2513

Defendant Elijah Gatewood pled guilty to one count of felonious assault in exchange for dismissal of a firearm specification and other charges; appeal followed after an Anders brief was set aside when appellate counsel identified arguable issues.
Incident: November 8, 2020 shooting after a disputed narcotics transaction; victim Nate was shot in the head and seriously injured; police recovered eleven .22 casings and firearms were found in Gatewood’s vehicle/home.
At plea hearing the court explained penalties and post-release control; the gun specification was dismissed per the plea agreement.
At sentencing the court imposed 7 to 10.5 years imprisonment plus 3 years mandatory post-release control, and criticized Gatewood’s conduct, stating “I don’t care what your prior record is or isn’t.”
Gatewood appealed, raising (1) that the court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12(E) recidivism factors and (2) that the court did not orally advise him of all R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) (Reagan Tokes) notifications at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court orally notified defendant of all R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) Reagan Tokes items at sentencing	State concedes the court failed to give the required oral R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications and agrees resentencing is required	Gatewood argued the court did not orally provide the required Reagan Tokes warnings at sentencing	Court: Sustained — sentence reversed in part and case remanded for a new sentencing hearing solely to provide the required oral R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications.
Whether the sentence is contrary to law because the court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12(E) (recidivism factors) — based on the bench remark “I don’t care what your prior record is or isn’t”	State: The court did consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; the written judgment entry documents the required consideration	Gatewood: The bench remark shows the court ignored statutory sentencing considerations, making the sentence contrary to law	Court: Overruled — remark was an isolated, inartful comment read in context; the journal entry reflects consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12, so the sentence is not contrary to law.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when appellate counsel files a no-merit brief)
State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (limits appellate relief under R.C. 2953.08 based on record support for R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 findings)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (prior sentencing analysis relied upon by some appellate courts)
State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 policies)
State v. Meister, 600 N.E.2d 1103 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (a court speaks through its journal; the judgment entry controls)