State v. Williams
2011 Ohio 995
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Williams pled guilty to five counts (three breaking and entering, one safecracking, one receiving stolen property) after indictment for church thefts.
- Trial court sentenced to one lump five-year term of community control in May 2009, reserving a twenty-eight-month prison term.
- An August 2009 order allowed ten days of electronic monitoring after alleged violation of controlled-substance conditions.
- December 2009 notice alleged multiple community-control violations (residence change, failure to notify, curfew, treatment, substance use).
- A hearing admitted violations; court revoked community control and imposed twenty-eight months' prison (to be served consecutively to other terms).
- On appeal, Williams contends (1) disparate treatment vs. accomplices, (2) improper revocation/imposition of the sentence, (3) improper lack of jail-credit for electronic monitoring; the court remands for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the revocation and the twenty-eight month term proper? | Williams contends the court over-sentenced him for minor violations. | Williams argues the court abused discretion by revoking control and imposing the entire sentence. | Yes; remanded for resentencing with proper per-count sentencing. |
| Did the trial court err by not sentencing separately on each count originally? | Williams asserts lump community-control sentencing violated statutory requirement to sentence separately per count. | State argues consolidation was proper under SB 2-era structure for community control. | Yes; initial lump sentencing was improper; requires de novo resentencing on each count. |
| Should Williams receive credit for time on electronic home monitoring? | Williams seeks thirty days jail-time credit already served on electronic monitoring. | State contends credit for monitoring period is not earned as jail-time credit. | Moot; resolved by remand on other issues; no separate ruling on credit due to remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006 Ohio 1245) (requires separate sentence per count; no omnibus sentence for multiple felonies)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006 Ohio 856) (redefines sentencing structure; focus on individual offenses per Ohio law)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (pre-SB2 notice requirements for post-release control (void if not proper))
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (post-release control implications after sentencing; notice requirements)