State v. Williams
2011 Ohio 6067
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Williams was indicted on 13 offenses from two incidents and elected some charges to bench trial and others to jury.
- A jury convicted on most counts; the court convicted all counts tried to bench and sentenced on March 23, 2006, with fines for four minor misdemeanors suspended due to indigence.
- On appeal, this court affirmed most convictions but dismissed appeal on fines for the minor misdemeanors because no sentence was imposed on those counts.
- In 2009, defective post-release control led to nunc pro tunc entries; this court held such entries invalid and required a de novo sentencing.
- A new sentencing hearing was held and, on January 27, 2011, Williams was sentenced; Williams appeals raising multiple assignments of error, consolidated for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2011 sentence violated Crim.R. 32(A) due to delay | Williams argues delay breached Crim.R. 32(A) and deprived jurisdiction | State contends continuing jurisdiction allowed correction despite delay | Crim.R. 32(A) not violated; court had continuing jurisdiction |
| Whether delaying sentencing on minor misdemeanors affected jurisdiction | Williams claims delay tainted proceedings and deprived jurisdiction | State maintains no jurisdictional defect; proper entries issued within continuing jurisdiction | No Crim.R. 32(A) violation; jurisdiction preserved |
| Whether the January 2011 sentencing entry was void or due process issues arose | Williams asserts the journal entry was void and denied due process | State asserts the entry was proper and within jurisdiction | Entry valid; no due process violation |
| Whether the appeals arguments of ethical misconduct or failure to rule on Crim.R. 29 were proper | Williams alleges ethical misconduct and denial of Crim.R. 29 ruling | State argues misconduct claims are not cognizable; other points lack citation | Claims overruled; lack of proper record support |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 9th Dist. No. 24990, 2010-Ohio-5110 (2010-Ohio-5110) (nunc pro tunc corrections invalid; de novo sentencing required for void sentence)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330 (2008-Ohio-3330) (proper sentencing entry must consolidate convictions)
- State v. Spears, 9th Dist. No. 24953, 2010-Ohio-1965 (2010-Ohio-1965) (Crim.R. 32(A) distinguishes refusing to sentence from improper sentencing)