State v. Waxler
2017 Ohio 7536
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2010 Waxler was indicted for multiple drug and stolen-property offenses; he pleaded no contest to five counts (including second- and third-degree felonies) and was originally sentenced to an aggregate 13-year prison term.
- An earlier appeal led to partial vacatur and remand for resentencing because the trial court had incorrectly found Waxler had caused or threatened physical harm and mischaracterized his plea; the sentence remained 13 years after a 2012 resentencing.
- This court later granted a delayed appeal and remanded again because the trial court had failed to make the specific findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when imposing consecutive sentences.
- At the 2016 resentencing the trial court: (1) found consecutive sentences were necessary and not disproportionate; (2) found at least two offenses were part of one or more courses of conduct; and (3) specifically found the harm was “so great or unusual” that no single term adequately reflected the seriousness of the conduct.
- The factual basis for the court’s findings included repeated sales of crack cocaine and multiple sales of firearms (some stolen), several transactions occurring within 1,000 feet of schools, and the pattern of selling both drugs and guns into the community (transactions involved an undercover ATF agent and a confidential informant).
- Waxler appealed only the (C)(4)(b) finding, arguing the record did not support that the harm was so great or unusual to justify consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Waxler's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) finding that the harm was "so great or unusual" is supported by the record | The record does not show harm "great or unusual"; transactions were to undercover law enforcement and thus did not produce community harm comparable to other cases | The record supports a (C)(4)(b) finding because Waxler repeatedly sold significant amounts of crack and multiple firearms (some stolen), including sales near schools, showing intent to supply the community | Affirmed — the appellate court held the record supports the trial court’s (C)(4)(b) finding and the imposition of consecutive sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Waxler, 69 N.E.3d 1132 (6th Dist. 2016) (earlier appellate decision in same case addressing plea characterization and remand)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (U.S. Supreme Court decision on pleas entered while maintaining innocence)