State v. Williams

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 4467

Syllabus

Crim.R. 11(C)(2) knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty pleas judicial release nunc pro tunc entry R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) jointly recommended sentence authorized by law sentencing range agreement unreviewable sentences R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for imposition of consecutive sentences. Trial court was not required to explain judicial release or inform defendant regarding his ineligibility for judicial release to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). Record showed that defendant was informed and understood that if he were to accept the plea agreement offered by the state, he would not be eligible for judicial release. Trial court did not err in entering a nunc pro tunc entry indicating that defendant was not eligible for judicial release where defendant's ineligibility for judicial release was a term of the plea agreement and the trial court expressly acknowledged that defendant was not eligible for judicial release at the sentencing hearing but inadvertently omitted defendant's ineligibility for judicial release from its original sentencing journal entry. Defendant's sentences, imposed in accordance with a plea agreement that included a jointly recommended aggregate sentencing range, were not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Trial court was permitted to impose nonmandatory consecutive sentences within the agreed sentencing range even without making all of the findings that would otherwise be required for the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).