State v. Watters
2012 Ohio 3809
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Watters was indicted in 2010 for aggravated murder with one and three-year firearm specifications, plus weapons offenses and tampering with evidence.
- The trial court ordered suspension of Watters's phone and mail privileges in 2011 after evidence of jail-based manipulation of alibis and witness threats.
- Watters withdrew his not guilty plea and pleaded guilty to aggravated murder with the firearm specifications; other charges were dismissed; he received 3 years on the firearm specs and 25 years to life for aggravated murder with parole eligibility after 28 years.
- The sentencing journal entry erroneously stated that postrelease control (PRC) applies to this unclassified felony, claiming a 5-year PRC term.
- Watters appealed challenging denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and the restrictions on his phone/mail, as well as his sentence and the PRC issue; the court found some issues outside the scope of the appeal and remanded for PRC correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial court abuse by denying withdrawal of guilty plea? | Watters argues denial without hearing; sought withdrawal. | State argues no error given timing and procedural posture. | Not reviewable on appeal due to notice/joinder issues; outside scope. |
| Did trial court violate constitutional rights by restricting phone/mail? | Watters contends restrictions were improper and punitive. | State asserts necessity to prevent witness tampering and danger. | Not reviewable on appeal due to scope; issue outside designated appeal. |
| Was Watters' 28-year sentence lawful and properly calculated? | Watters claims sentence was disproportionate and miscalculated. | State argues sentence complies with statutes and is within range. | Sentence not contrary to law; no abuse of discretion. |
| Was postrelease control properly imposed for an aggravated-murder sentence? | PRC not applicable to unclassified felonies like aggravated murder; improper entry. | State treated as PRC-eligible; journal entry supports PRC. | PRC improper; remand to correct journal entry |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (standard of review for sentencing under Kalish; compliance with statutes first, then abuse of discretion)
- State v. Brunning, 8th Dist. No. 95376, 2011-Ohio-1936 (2011-Ohio-1936) (preservation of disproportionate-sentence challenge requires trial-court presentation)
- State v. Burrell, 2011-Ohio-2533 (8th Dist. No. 95512) (consideration of sentencing factors shown by journal entry and transcript)
- State v. Evans, 8th Dist. No. 95692, 2011-Ohio-2153 (2011-Ohio-2153) (remedy when PRC error occurs; remand to correct journal entry)