State v. Bailey

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 5476

Syllabus

Felony sentence, consecutive sentence; disproportionate; withdrawal of plea; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); Crim.R. 11. Judgment affirmed. A reviewing court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Our review of the record indicates that the trial court engaged in the proper analysis, weighed the appropriate factors, and made the necessary findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences. A hearing on a postsentence motion to withdraw is only required if the facts alleged by the defendant, accepted as true, would require the defendant be allowed to withdraw the plea. Crim.R. 11 requires the trial court to ensure that a change of plea is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. When reviewing pleas, this court focuses on whether the dialogue between the trial court and the defendant demonstrates that the defendant understood the plea's consequences and has rejected the assertion that a trial court is required to include an advisement regarding consecutive sentences. Here, a review of the record demonstrates that the trial court complied with the relevant provisions of Crim.R. 11(C) and a manifest injustice did not occur.