STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WILLIE MIMES, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-200122
TRIAL NO. B-1906901
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
July 21, 2021
2021-Ohio-2494
HENDON, Judge.
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant Public Defender, fоr Defendant-Appellant.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Willie Mimes appeals the 36-month prison sentence that the trial court imposed after Mimes pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. We affirm the 36-month prison term. We reverse the portion of the trial сourt‘s judgment imposing costs and fines and remand this cause to the trial court to correct the clerical error in the entry reflecting the imposition of costs and fines.
I. Facts and Procedure
A. Background
{¶2} On December 10, 2019, Willie Mimes, III, was charged with “failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer” under
{¶3} In January 2020, Mimes entered a guilty plea to the charge. The trial court ordered a presentence investigation report, an advisability of treаtment report, and a River City evaluation.
B. The Sentencing Hearing
{¶4} In February 2020, the court held a sentencing hearing. In mitigation, counsel for Mimes acknowledged that the officers had rеservations about Mimes’ attitude, but that Mimes had taken full responsibility for his actions after being read his Miranda rights. Counsel argued that the reports supported Mimes’ eligibility for intensive supervised probation; that Mimes had “no problems with alcohol or drugs” and that he was at a “moderate risk” to reoffend although his “employment history in his neighborhood placed him on high risk areas as far as the risk assessment score.” Counsel also stated that Mimes had “been through a lot for being such a young man,” thаt he was “just asking for help” and was apologetic.
{¶5} Mimes had initially expressed that he had nothing to say on his own behalf. The court then asked Mimes, “No apologies?” to which Mimes responded “I apologize.” The court asked Mimes if he realized how dangerous the situation was. Mimes replied with, “Can we just get to the рoint?” and that the court could “do what you all have to do” if it did not want to send him to six months of treatment at River City. The court responded, “We are not doing that.” Mimеs then said, “Three years? Do that. It is what it is.”
{¶6} After being given time to speak with Mimes outside of court, counsel explained that Mimes had been in the Hamilton County Justice Cеnter for 72 days, and that he was “a little frightened” and had “bad nerves.” The court disagreed and, based on Mimes’ juvenile record and the officer‘s account of what happened at the scene, stated that it was “not going to waste a bed.” After considering the risk that Mimes would commit another offense, the need tо protect the public, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and Mimes’ history, character, and condition, the court determined that a prison sentence was required.
{¶7} Mimes was sentenced to 36 months in the Ohio Department of Corrections with credit for days served at the Hamilton County Justice Centеr and for transport time. Mimes did not object. The trial court opted not to order fines or court costs.
{¶8} Pursuant to
{¶9} With respect to
{¶10} We review a trial court‘s imposition of court fines and costs to determine whether clear and convincing evidence supports the order. The state concedes this issue, stating that the issue of court costs was a clerical error, and requests the matter be remanded for correction.
III. Assignment of Error
{¶11} In his first assignment of error, Mimes argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court was contrary to law. Mimes contends that the trial court‘s sentence did not comply with the principles аnd purposes of sentencing under
{¶12} In his second assignment of error, Mimes argues that the trial cоurt erred by imposing court costs after stating that it would not do so during the sentencing hearing.
{¶13}
{¶14} However, in State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, the Ohio Supreme Court recently held that ”
{¶15} The court further held that a trial court‘s findings under
{¶17} Mimes has not shown that the trial court failed to consider the factors in
B. Court Costs and Fines
{¶18} The trial court announced that there would be no cоurt costs or fines, but the entry reflected imposition of costs and fines. The state concedes that the case should be remanded to correct this error. The second assignment of error is sustained.
IV. Conclusion
{¶19} We affirm the portion of the trial court‘s judgment where it sentenced Mimes to 36 months of imprisonment. We reverse the trial court‘s judgment assessing costs and fines and we remand the matter to the trial court to correct this clerical error in the entry.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded.
MYERS, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.
SYLVIA SIEVE HENDON, retired, from the First Appellate District, sitting by assignment.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion