State v. Watts
2016 Ohio 4960
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Kordeya D. Watts II pleaded guilty in 2015 to multiple offenses across four Cuyahoga County cases: receiving stolen property (two counts), two aggravated robberies (each with a one-year firearm specification), robbery, and two counts of having weapons while under disability.
- Three of the crimes (including two armed aggravated robberies) occurred within a four-day span while Watts was released on bond in another case.
- The trial court imposed consecutive sentences across the cases, totaling 14 years’ imprisonment, and Watts timely appealed.
- He raised two assignments of error: (1) the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing.
- The State conceded the court did not make the requisite consecutive-sentence findings but disputed the proper remedy; the parties agreed remand was an appropriate option for correcting the sentencing entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences | State acknowledged the court failed to make all statutory findings but contended remand for limited resentencing/finding was sufficient | Watts argued the absence of the findings required vacatur of the sentences and a full resentencing | Court found the trial court did fail to make required findings; remanded for the limited purpose of determining whether consecutive sentences are appropriate and, if so, to state and journal the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings (first assignment sustained) |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective at sentencing | State argued counsel’s advocacy and mitigation efforts were within reasonable strategy given facts | Watts argued counsel failed to present mitigation and made harmful admissions (e.g., that little mitigation existed) harming his chance for a reduced sentence | Court held counsel’s performance was not deficient and Watts was not prejudiced; mitigation efforts (family support, remorse, program intent) were reasonable strategy (second assignment overruled) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and journal consecutive-sentence findings though exact statutory language need not be recited)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)