State v. Jones, 2012 Ohio 2075

Jones pleaded guilty to three felonious assault counts and one weapons-under-disability count, with related gun-firearm specifications dismissed.
Before sentencing, Jones unsuccessfully moved to withdraw his pleas, claiming innocence and seeking a bench trial.
Sentencing occurred Sept. 22, 2011, but the journal entry was dated Oct. 7, 2011, after Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86 became effective.
HB 86 reduced the penalty for weapons under disability from five years to 36 months and revived a findings requirement for consecutive sentences.
The trial court sentenced Jones to 32 years total, including a five-year term for weapons under disability and consecutive terms for the other offenses.
This appeal challenges (a) the denial of motions to withdraw pleas and (b) the sentence length, particularly the weapons-under-disability term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the denial of withdrawal motions error?	State argues motions were meritless after full Crim.R. 11 proceedings.	Jones contends the pleas should be withdrawn because innocence and plea reliability issues exist.	No abuse of discretion; motions denied.
Does HB 86 require resentencing on the weapons-under-disability count?	State maintains original terms; no need to reduce.	Jones is entitled to the reduced 36-month maximum under amended statute.	Sentence for weapons-under-disability vacated and remanded for resentencing within the amended range.

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (discretion in pre-sentence plea withdrawal decisions)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (unconstitutional consecutive-sentencing findings; HB 86 revival)
State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010) (trial court findings before consecutive sentences permitted under HB 86)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (Sixth Amendment and judicial fact-finding for consecutive sentences)
State v. Miller, 2010-Ohio-5705 (Ohio) (timeline for when HB 86 applies to sentencing based on docket/journal entry)