State v. Nawman
2015 Ohio 447
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Nawman was indicted on burglary and having a weapon while under disability; burglary count dismissed in exchange for Nawman's plea to the weapon-offense.
- Trial court sentenced Nawman to the maximum three-year term for a third-degree felony, to run consecutively to a Clinton County four-year sentence, for an aggregate seven years.
- PSI revealed prior burglary convictions in 2006 and two in February 2013; Clinton County factored into sentencing.
- Nawman appealed, challenging (a) the maximum sentence, (b) the imposition of consecutive sentences, and (c) the guilty plea as not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent.
- Court reviewed whether the sentence complied with R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, and whether Rc 2929.14(C)(4) findings were properly made, and whether Crim.R. 11 requirements were met.
- Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, overruling Nawman’s assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the maximum three-year sentence was contrary to law. | Nawman argues maximum term violates sentencing purposes. | State contends maximum within range and consistent with statute and case law. | Not contrary to law; within statutory range. |
| Whether the trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences under RC 2929.14(C)(4). | Court failed to make required statutory findings for consecutives. | Court made requisite findings and considered Nawman’s criminal history. | Records support the consecutive sentences; findings exist. |
| Whether Nawman’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent given lack of notice about consecutive sentences. | Failure to inform about possible consecutive sentences rendered plea invalid. | Crim.R. 11(C) satisfied; non-constitutional aspects only require substantial compliance; no prejudice shown. | Plea upheld; not a knowing/voluntary defect; substantial compliance, and no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barker, 2009-Ohio-3511 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2009) (requires consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in sentencing)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006-Ohio-855) (principles for determining sentences under statutory policies)
- State v. Ulrich, 2011-Ohio-758 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2011) (presumes trial court properly considers 2929.11 and 2929.12 unless clearly contrary)
- State v. Hall, 2011-Ohio-635 (2d Dist. Clark 2011) (presumed proper consideration of 2929.11 and 2929.12)
- State v. Nelson, 2012-Ohio-5797 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2012) (trial court need not state its consideration of 2929.11/12 when not contrary to law)
- State v. Eicholtz, 2013-Ohio-302 (2d Dist. Clark 2013) (affirmed use of abuse/discretion in sentencing and 2929.11/12 compliance)
- State v. Neff, 2012-Ohio-6047 (2d Dist. Clark 2012) (trial court presumed to have considered 2929.11/12 absent contrary showing)
- State v. Brown, 2012-Ohio-199 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2012) (substantial compliance standard for Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)-(b))
- State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (1988-Ohio-) (sentencing discretion; lack of requirement to inform plea of consecutive sentences at plea)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008-Ohio-3748) (strict vs. substantial compliance for Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) waivers)
- State v. Bailey, 2012-Ohio-1569 (2d Dist. Clark 2012) (Crim.R. 11 compliance; consecutive sentence factor)
- State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200 (Ohio) (prejudice requirement for knowing voluntary plea challenges)
- State v. Russell, 2012-Ohio-6051 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2012) (knowingly voluntary plea requires showing of prejudicial effect)