State v. Wilkins
2021 Ohio 311
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- David Wilkins pleaded guilty (Nov. 6, 2018) to multiple drug offenses, reckless homicide (felony 3), and having weapons while under disability (felony 3).
- Trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 11-year prison term: concurrent terms for most counts and an 8-year term (Count 13) consecutive to a 36-month term (Count 18).
- This court vacated the consecutive-term order on appeal for failure to make the proportionality finding required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and remanded for resentencing.
- At the Dec. 16, 2019 resentencing hearing the trial court made the required consecutive-sentence findings on the record, including necessity, non-disproportionality, course-of-conduct/serious-harm, and criminal-history-based necessity.
- The sentencing journal entry (Dec. 17, 2019) incorporated most findings but omitted the explicit criminal-history finding the judge stated at resentencing.
- The appellate court affirmed the substantive imposition of consecutive sentences but remanded for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order incorporating all on-the-record consecutive-sentence findings (including the criminal-history finding) into the journal entry.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Wilkins' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing journal entry satisfied R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)/Bonnell when it used different (more general) language than the oral resentencing findings and omitted one finding | Trial court made the required findings on the record; the journal entry need not repeat the exact oral language so long as the record shows the analysis and the entry reflects the findings | Journal entry contains a blanket/boilerplate statement and omitted the criminal-history finding, failing Bonnell’s requirement to incorporate on-the-record findings into the journal entry | Affirmed sentences; remanded for nunc pro tunc entry to add the omitted criminal-history finding so the journal fully reflects the oral findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must consider statutory criteria on the record and incorporate findings into journal entry; clerical omission may be corrected nunc pro tunc)
- State v. Edmonson, 715 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1999) (trial court must note it engaged in statutory analysis when imposing sentence)
- State v. Blevins, 93 N.E.3d 246 (Ohio App. 2017) (appellate courts review trial court’s on-the-record statements in their entirety to determine whether required findings were made)