State v. Williams, 2017 Ohio 1002

Defendant Charunz Williams pleaded guilty to: one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity (felony 2), two counts of grand theft of a motor vehicle (felonies 4), and four counts of breaking and entering (felonies 5).
Sentenced to an aggregate nine-year prison term (concurrent and consecutive terms as imposed).
Court ordered restitution of $66,698 and statutory "triple" fines of $200,094 under R.C. 2923.32(B)(2)(a).
Williams challenged (1) the length/consecutive nature of his sentence and (2) imposition of restitution and fines as unsupported by the record regarding his ability to pay.
Trial court relied on Williams’s extensive criminal history (28 convictions over 33 years, 19 felonies), the need to protect the public, and the victims’ losses when imposing sentence and financial sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the nine-year consecutive sentence was improper	State defended sentence as supported by statutory sentencing factors and defendant’s record	Williams argued court failed to properly weigh R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and sentence was disproportionate (noting co-defendant got 3 years)	Affirmed — record supports court’s consideration of factors; prior record justified greater term
Whether court erred in imposing restitution of $66,698	State presented an exhibit calculating victims’ losses and asked for restitution	Williams argued inability to pay now or in future (age, limited education, criminal record)	Affirmed — restitution amount supported by record; court considered future ability to work
Whether court erred in imposing $200,094 in fines (tripling statute)	State relied on R.C. 2923.32(B)(2)(a) authority to triple fines for RICO-type activity	Williams contended fines were excessive given inability to pay	Affirmed — fine authorized by statute; court considered ability to pay; defendant waived some challenge by not objecting at sentencing
Whether sentencing required specific judicial factfinding under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12	State argued court only needed to consider statutory factors, not make detailed findings	Williams argued trial court failed to properly weigh/consider those factors	Affirmed — Ohio caselaw requires consideration, not specific findings; court’s statements show factors were considered

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (courts must consider R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors but judicial factfinding to impose sentence is not required)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear-and-convincing standard to disturb sentences)