State v. Wells
2021 Ohio 3278
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Danielle Wells pleaded guilty to multiple offenses (RICO, conspiracy, money laundering, theft, receiving stolen property); several counts merged for sentencing.
- The trial court imposed five years of community control and orally notified Wells of specific prison terms that could be imposed if she violated, including an eight-year stated term.
- Wells later violated community control, was ordered to CBCF, was transferred to jail for another alleged violation, and ultimately admitted a violation after a capias issued when she failed to appear.
- At the violation merits hearing the court imposed prison sentences that ran partly concurrently and partly consecutively, producing an aggregate 12-year prison term.
- Wells appealed; this Court reinstated the appeal and addressed four assignments of error concerning (1) exceeding the stated prison term, (2) adequacy of the notice of the specific prison term for count one, (3) imposition of consecutive sentences, and (4) whether the revocation hearing constituted a new sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by conducting a sentencing at the community-control revocation (resentencing) | Wells: court merely enforced a pre-existing prison term, so no new sentencing was permitted | State: revocation hearing is a sentencing hearing; court has broad discretion to impose sentence within prior notice | No error — revocation is a sentencing hearing; assignment overruled |
| Whether the court failed to give adequate, specific notice of the prison term on count one | Wells: trial court did not explicitly notify a definite term for count one, so cannot later impose 8 years | State: transcript shows the court orally specified an eight-year term and nunc pro tunc entry corrected the journal entry | No error — oral sentencing fixed an eight-year term; notice satisfied statutory/ Brooks requirements |
| Whether the imposed aggregate 12-year sentence exceeded the stated prison term (violating notice limits) | Wells: 12 years exceeds the 8-year term she was told she could receive | State: conceded error on this point | Error — sustained; court erred in imposing sentence exceeding the stated notified term |
| Whether imposition of consecutive sentences was improper without required findings | Wells: findings must have been made at original sentencing | State: trial court did not intend consecutive sentences in its notice (said concurrent), so running consecutive was improper | Error — sustained in part: consecutive structure caused total to exceed the notified term, so imposition was improper; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jackson, 150 Ohio St.3d 362 (revocation hearing is a sentencing hearing; judge has broad discretion but may not exceed the term stated at original sentencing)
- State v. Howard, 162 Ohio St.3d 314 (clarifies Brooks and confirms when findings and notices must occur in revocation/context)
- State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (trial court must give straightforward, affirmative notice of a definite prison term upon sentencing to community control)
- State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158 (nunc pro tunc entries may correct clerical errors to reflect the original intent)
- State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (nunc pro tunc entries relate back to the original order)
- State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 (addresses interplay of sentencing entries and subsequent corrections)