State v. Williams
2011 Ohio 6698
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Williams was indicted in 2008 on five counts (three breaking and entering, one safecracking, one receiving stolen property).
- He pled guilty to all charges on March 16, 2009.
- Sentence: five years of community control with a 30-day electronic monitoring (EM) condition, payable by Williams, limited to curfew.
- EM was completed successfully; probation violations followed (curfew, treatment, reporting, address change, marijuana use).
- Probation was revoked; Williams received concurrent prison terms totaling 28 months (with safecracking consecutive).
- On appeal, this court remanded for resentencing; at May 5, 2011 resentencing, the court kept 28-month prison term and credited 523 days time served; Williams sought 30 more days credit for EM time, which was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit for EM time as confinement | Williams contends EM time constitutes confinement for time credit. | State argues EM time is not confinement under R.C. 2949.08(C). | First assignment overruled; EM time not confinement under prevailing standard. |
| Harshness of sentence for safecracking | Sentence for safecracking was unreasonably harsh given lack of greater offense context. | Court appropriately weighed sentencing factors and imposed within statutory range. | Second assignment overruled; discretionary sentencing within statutory bounds. |
| Effective assistance of counsel for community control | Counsel failed to advocate for community control at sentencing. | Counsel's performance did not prejudice outcome; post-remand context rendered the issue moot. | Third assignment overruled; no reversible error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holmes, 2008-Ohio-6804 (6th Dist. No. L-08-1127 (Ohio 2008)) (confines post-conviction EMHA time credit analysis)
- In re Nataleen Gould, 2008-Ohio-900 (5th Dist. No. 07-CA-0099 (Ohio 2008)) (electronic monitoring as detention in context of confinement)
- State v. Tabor, 2011-Ohio-3200 (5th Dist. No. 111 CA 33 (Ohio 2011)) (EMHA not necessarily confinement; conflict with Blankenship)
- State v. Blankenship, 2011-Ohio-1601 (10th Dist. No. 10AP-581 (Ohio 2011)) (examination of confinement under EMHA and time credit framework)
- State v. Nagle, 1986 (Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 1986)) (probationary confinement and time credit framework)
- State v. Napier, 2001 (Ohio St.3d 646 (Ohio 2001)) (community-based facility as confinement for credit purposes)
- State v. Slager, 2009-Ohio-1804 (10th Dist. No. 08AP-581 (Ohio 2009)) (escape/confinement considerations in EM contexts)
- State v. Ober, 2004-Ohio-3568 (2nd Dist. No. 2003-CA-27 (Ohio 2004)) (confinement considerations in electronic monitoring context)
- State v. Gapen, 2004-Ohio-6548 (Ohio 2004) (pretrial EM not detention for escape prosecution; distinguishes post-conviction context)