State v. Wells
2013 Ohio 1179
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Wells pleaded guilty in April 2011 to two counts of criminal nonsupport, a fifth-degree felony.
- At sentencing, the court placed Wells on community-controlled sanctions for 60 months with conditions including community service, random drug testing, employment, probation reporting, and current support payments.
- The court warned Wells that violations would result in consecutive prison terms totaling 24 months if probation was violated.
- One year later, Wells’s probation was violated for failing to report, incomplete payments, and missing drug tests; the court revoked community control and sentenced Wells to 11 months on each count, totaling 22 months, to run consecutively.
- Wells appealed, challenging consecutive-sentencing authority, the necessity and proportionality of the consecutive sentences, and the imposition of court costs not discussed at sentencing.
- The intermediate appellate court affirmed the consecutive sentences but reversed the court costs issue and remanded for a possible indigency waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose consecutive sentences | Wells argued no authority under former R.C. 2929.41(A). | State argued the revival of consecutive-sentence provisions via R.C. 2929.14(C) after HB 86. | Authority exists to impose consecutive sentences. |
| Compliance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings | Wells contends the court failed to make required findings. | State contends the court properly conducted the three-step analysis. | Findings satisfied the requirements to impose consecutive sentences. |
| Imposition of court costs without sentencing notice | Costs were imposed without being mentioned at sentencing. | Costs were previously mentioned at the initial hearing; later issue was not addressed. | Court costs reversed; remanded for indigency waiver proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ryan, 8th Dist. No. 98005, 2012-Ohio-5070 (8th Dist. 2012) (reconciling revived consecutive-sentencing provisions after Foster)
- State v. Walker, 8th Dist. No. 97648, 2012-Ohio-4274 (8th Dist. 2012) (explains application of C(4) findings in consecutive sentences)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-6320 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (revival of prior sentencing framework post-Foster)
- State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. No. 97579, 2012-Ohio-2508 (8th Dist. 2012) (meaningful review of sentencing decisions under RC 2953.08(G))
- State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 1999 (Ohio Supreme Court 1999) (requirement that the record show statutorily mandated findings)