State v. Williams
2021 Ohio 2032
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Defendant Keena (Kenna) Williams was indicted on 13 counts arising from April–May 2019 incidents involving his ex‑girlfriend (J.B.): forced entry/strangulation, theft/damaging property, firearm discharge at a habitation, and repeated threatening/harassing calls.
- On the day of trial Williams pleaded guilty (after Crim.R. 11 advisement) to amended Count 1 (burglary), amended Count 6 (attempted improper discharge of a firearm into a habitation with a three‑year firearm specification), and Counts 2–5 and 7–13 as charged.
- Williams filed a pro se, presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas alleging ineffective assistance/ coercion and maintained innocence; he remained represented by appointed counsel.
- At sentencing the trial court denied (implicitly) the pro se motion without a hearing, imposed an aggregate five‑year prison term (ordering two 12‑month terms consecutive to each other plus a 3‑year firearm spec), and stated a no‑contact order with the victim/family.
- On appeal Williams raised three assignments: (1) denial of a presentence motion to withdraw plea without a hearing, (2) consecutive sentences unsupported by the record, and (3) error in imposing a no‑contact order together with imprisonment. The court affirmed the convictions and consecutive sentences but reversed the no‑contact order and remanded for correction of the journal entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether trial court erred by denying defendant's presentence pro se motion to withdraw plea without a hearing | State: Court may decline to entertain a pro se motion when defendant is represented; allowing it would permit impermissible hybrid representation | Williams: Motion alleged ineffective assistance/coercion and sought withdrawal; he was entitled to a hearing before sentencing | Court: No error — defendant remained represented and did not move to proceed pro se; trial court could decline the pro se motion without a hearing (assignment overruled) |
| 2) Whether consecutive sentences were unsupported by the record under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: Record supports findings — serious psychological harm, course of conduct/harassment, danger from attempted firearm discharge, and significant criminal history | Williams: Harms were not "so great or unusual" and offenses didn't justify consecutive terms | Court: No error — trial court made required findings at sentencing and record supports consecutive sentences (assignment overruled) |
| 3) Whether the trial court could impose a no‑contact order while sentencing defendant to prison | State: Court conceded the no‑contact order was erroneous because prison and no‑contact (a community‑control type restriction) cannot both be imposed for the same felony | Williams: Prison sentence precludes imposition of a no‑contact order for the same offense | Court: Error — no‑contact order vacated and journal entry modified; remanded to correct entry (assignment sustained) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 584 N.E.2d 715 (defendant lacks absolute right to withdraw plea pre‑sentencing; hearing ordinarily required)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (trial court must make and incorporate statutory findings for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 35 N.E.3d 512 (trial court cannot impose both prison term and no‑contact order for same felony)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (standard of review for felony sentencing under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324, 715 N.E.2d 131 (trial court must articulate it engaged in statutory analysis when imposing sentence)