State v. Williams
2012 Ohio 6277
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Williams was indicted on multiple felonies including aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, rape, weapons under disability, and firearm specifications; a superseding indictment later named a co-defendant and amended one count from rape to gross sexual imposition.
- Williams waived his speedy-trial rights, then later moved to revoke the waiver and pled guilty as part of a Crim.R. 11 plea agreement.
- The State agreed to a structured, largely concurrent-to-consecutive sentence, totaling 13 years, and Williams’ bond was modified to a monitored house arrest.
- During sentencing, Williams absconded, leading the State to seek the maximum sentence; the court pronounced a detailed, lengthy sentence at the hearing, but the later judgment entry contained a different total.
- The sentencing entry merged some firearm specifications and later purportedly merged Counts Four and Five; the court failed to discuss allied offenses on the record and imposed inconsistent totals between the hearing and the entry.
- The court later concluded plain error in failing to address allied offenses, notified about post-release control in the plea but not at sentencing, and remanded for resentencing consistent with merger analysis and post-release-control notification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court properly admit Williams’ guilty plea under Crim.R. 11? | Williams: Crim.R.11 not substantially complied. | State: maximum per-charge explanations provided; no Crim.R.11 defect. | Guilty plea substantially complied; plea valid. |
| Was Williams’ pre-sentence motion to withdraw his plea erroneously denied? | Williams: denial was an abuse of discretion given timing and reliance on speedy-trial issues. | State: denial supported by factors (no prejudice to State, timing acceptable, etc.). | No abuse of discretion; but remand for merger/resentencing warranted. |
| Did the court commit inconsistent sentencing and misstate totals between hearing and entry? | Williams: inconsistent sentences violated Crim.R. 43 and due process. | State: clerical error; nunc pro tunc correction permissible. | Judgment entry inconsistent; remand for resentencing required; not a clerical error. |
| Whether post-release control notice and allied-offenses merger were properly handled? | Williams: proper post-release-control notice required; possible allied-offense merge未addressed. | State: notice and merger issues should be addressed on remand. | Plain error for post-release-control notice; merger analysis required on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (1988) (explains Crim.R.11 pleading requirements and per-charge vs. cumulative sentences)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for Crim.R.11 non-constitutional rights)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (Crim.R.11 colloquy requirements for knowing pleas)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (define pre-sentence withdrawal standards under Crim.R.32.1; timing factors)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (reasonableness of concurrent/consecutive sentencing and review of Kalish factors)