State v. Williams, 2013 Ohio 3448

Appellant Agatha Williams was admitted to the practice of law in 1991 and practiced about twenty years.
On Feb. 10, 2012 Williams pled guilty to multiple felonies (grand theft, theft, forgery) and received five years of community control plus fines and restitution.
The court warned that violating the community control could lead to a total prison term of 102 months if revoked.
In Sept. 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered permanent disbarment after Williams admitted leaving Ohio to gamble, violating probation terms.
The State moved to revoke Williams' probation; Williams challenged the disciplinary hearing testimony and a motion in limine order denied.
On Oct. 15, 2012 the trial court revoked probation and sentenced Williams to consecutive prison terms totaling 102 months, plus restitution and a monetary fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences required statutorily mandated findings	Williams argues RC 2929.14(C)(4) findings were not made.	State contends the court properly imposed consecutive sentences.	First assignment sustained; remanded for resentencing with proper findings.
Whether disciplinary-board statements were coerced under Garrity and improperly used	Williams asserts Garrity coercion invalidates statements used to revoke probation.	State argues statements were not compelled and proper in context.	Second assignment overruled; statements properly considered; revocation affirmed in part and remanded for resentencing.

State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 (2003-Ohio-4165) (requires express findings for consecutive sentences)
State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (2004-Ohio-4746) (consecutive-sentence findings framework)
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (statements under threat of job loss may be compelled in criminal cases)
State v. Fauntleroy, 2012-Ohio-4955 (5th Dist.) (record must show findings supporting consecutive sentences)
State v. Bonnell, 2012-Ohio-515 (5th Dist.) (limits and requires explicit factual findings for consecutive terms)
State v. Nistelback, 10th Dist. No. 11AP 874, 2012-Ohio-1764 (10th Dist.) (prison term admissibility tied to revocation timing)