State v. Wilkerson
2014 Ohio 980
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Wilkerson was charged in two Logan County cases: CR 12-01-0006 with two trafficking in drugs counts (fourth and fifth degree) and CR 12-06-0132 with four counts including trafficking, possession, resisting an officer, and tampering with evidence.
- He pled guilty in a joint proceeding on January 29, 2013, to two counts in CR 12-01-0006 and two counts in CR 12-06-0132; other charges were dismissed.
- Sentencing occurred March 4, 2013, with the court proposing consecutive prison terms based on Wilkerson’s criminal history and ongoing drug trafficking while on bond.
- The trial court ultimately sentenced Wilkerson to 18 months (CR 12-01-0006 count I) and 18 months (CR 12-06-0132 counts I-II) for a total of 36 months to be served consecutively, and ordered costs to be paid.
- A written Judgment Entries memorialized the sentences but did not reiterate the court’s consecutive-sentence findings; Wilkerson timely appealed arguing improper consecutive-sentence findings and imposition of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences | Wilkerson | Wilkerson argues no proper statutorily mandated findings were on the record | Findings were incomplete; consecutive sentences reversed and remanded |
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing financial sanctions | Wilkerson notes discrepancies in costs wording | State contends costs were properly sanctioned | Moot due to remand for resentencing; costs to be addressed on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Temple, 2013-Ohio-3843 (2d Dist. Clark No.2012-CA-65) (analyzed sufficiency of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings without exact language)
- State v. Koeser, 2013-Ohio-5838 (11th Dist. Portage No. 2013-P-0041) (sufficiency of findings when two offenses part of a course of conduct)
- State v. Whitaker, 2013-Ohio-4434 (12th Dist. Adams No. 2013-Ohio-4434) (affirmed findings when trial court described overall danger and multiple offenses)
- State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (held no specific consecutive-sentence findings; improper under 2929.14(C)(4))
- State v. Spencer, 2014-Ohio-204 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99729) (reaffirmed requires explicit, separate findings; cannot rely on implicit inferences)
- State v. Billenstein, 2014-Ohio-255 (3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-13-10) (held that partial statutory findings suffice only when all required findings are addressed)
- State v. Peddicord, 2013-Ohio-3398 (3d Dist. Henry No. 7-12-24) (not all required C(4) findings; remanded)
- State v. Upkins, 2012-Ohio-6114 (3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-12-13) (found insufficient findings where court discussed C(4) factors but failed to find necessity or proportionality)
- State v. Edmonson, 1999-Ohio-532 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (establishes requirement that trial courts make explicit findings prior to imposing consecutive sentences)