State v. Whitaker
2019 Ohio 2823
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile-transferred defendant Ju’Vontay Whitaker pleaded guilty in two separate Cuyahoga County common pleas cases to (1) robbery (third-degree felony with a one-year firearm spec) and (2) attempted felonious assault (third-degree felony). Pleas included agreement to consecutive sentences.
- PSI was ordered; Whitaker had been detained ~21 months, completed high school in detention, and counsel and family urged leniency, noting no prior delinquency adjudications or convictions before the instant offenses.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed maximum terms of 36 months for each third-degree felony plus a one-year firearm term, for a total of 7 years, and credited Whitaker with time served.
- In explaining sentence the trial court referenced Whitaker’s “prior convictions,” stating three prior aggravated robberies and an “extensive prior” history; counsel attempted to correct the court during sentencing.
- The PSI and court record actually showed no prior convictions predating the instant offenses; three other matters listed occurred after the instant offenses (one dismissed; dispositions of two were unclear).
- The Eighth District reversed and remanded for resentencing, finding the trial court relied on demonstrably inaccurate information (prior convictions) in imposing consecutive maximum terms, so the sentence was unsupported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was contrary to law / unsupported because the trial court relied on prior convictions that did not exist | State: the court considered required statutory factors and its journal entry that it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 suffices | Whitaker: court explicitly relied on nonexistent prior convictions and thus failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; sentence is unsupported | Reversed and remanded for resentencing: the record shows the court relied on demonstrably inaccurate information (prior convictions), so the sentence is unsupported by the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum v. State, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate review: may modify sentence only if contrary to law or clearly unsupported by the record)
- McGowan v. State, 62 N.E.3d 178 (Ohio 2016) (reinforces Marcum standard limiting appellate modification to sentences contrary to law or unsupported by the record)
- Rahab v. State, 80 N.E.3d 431 (Ohio 2017) (trial courts have broad discretion in sentencing within statutory range)
- State v. Wilson, 951 N.E.2d 381 (Ohio 2011) (R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes; courts need not make specific on-the-record findings of consideration)