State v. Williams, 43 N.E.3d 797

Background

Appellant Lexter Williams and two co-defendants entered an occupied home, held three victims at gunpoint, moved the female victim to the basement where he sexually assaulted her (count reduced to gross sexual imposition), and later robbed victims on the second floor. Weapons and valuables were taken.
Williams pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement that reduced rape to gross sexual imposition and included a prosecutor recommendation of a 13-year aggregate sentence, conditional on compliance with EMHA and other terms.
Williams removed his ankle monitor, fled the jurisdiction, was apprehended in Philadelphia, and the state rescinded its recommendation at sentencing; the trial court imposed consecutive prison terms totaling an aggregate (disputed) multi-decade sentence.
This Court previously vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing to resolve discrepancies, postrelease-control notice, and merger inquiries (Williams I).
On resentencing, the trial court again imposed lengthy consecutive terms. Williams appeals raising allied-offense merger, disproportionality, and (raised at oral argument) failures to make statutory consecutive-sentence findings and to properly notify postrelease-control sanctions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Williams)	Held
Whether kidnapping and aggravated robbery (and kidnapping and GSI) are allied offenses subject to merger	The movements and confinements were substantial and secretive, so kidnapping did not merge with robbery or GSI	All restraints were incidental to the robberies/assaults at the same time/place and thus should merge	Court: Kidnapping and GSI (female victim) do not merge; but record was inadequate on whether kidnapping and robbery merge for all three victims — remanded for proper merger analysis
Whether Williams’ sentence is disproportionate to those of similarly situated defendants (R.C. 2929.11(B))	Sentence appropriate given breach of plea terms and Williams’ criminal history	Sentence disproportionate compared to co-defendants and other local defendants	Court: Williams failed to prove he was similarly situated or present evidence; sentence not disproportionate; claim denied
Whether the trial court made required consecutive-sentence findings (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4))	Court: consecutive terms necessary (at sentencing)	Williams: trial court did not make the statutory findings	Court: Plain error — trial court record and entry lack the required findings; remanded to make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings
Whether Williams was properly advised of postrelease-control sanctions	State conceded error at oral argument	Williams: not properly notified of sanction consequences	Court: Remand — trial court failed to advise of possible incarceration sanctions for violating postrelease control; must correct notice in hearing and entry

Key Cases Cited

State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126 (kidnapping with prolonged restraint, secret confinement, or substantial movement does not merge)
State v. Blankenship, 38 Ohio St.3d 116 (elements/animus test for allied-offense analysis)
State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (discussion of abstract elements analysis)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (test whether same conduct can constitute both offenses and whether single act/single state of mind)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (refined, fact-specific three-part allied-offense test: import, separate commission, separate animus)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (consecutive-sentence findings must be in hearing and entry)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (appellate standard for reviewing discretionary sentencing — referenced in discussion of standards)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (postrelease-control notice requirements)
State v. Bevly, 142 Ohio St.3d 41 (GSI sentencing constitutional issue addressed; court finds Bevly inapplicable here)