State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (8-27-2004)
State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (8-27-2004)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} Defendant, Antonio Lee Williams, was charged by indictment with two counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon in violation of R.C. 2922/02(A)(1), one count of kidnaping with a deadly weapon in violation of R.C. 2905/01(A)(2), one count of felonious assault with a deadly weapon in violation of R.C. 2903/22(A)(2), and one count of grand theft, all with attached firearm specifications, except count five. Defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated robbery and kidnaping. All other counts, including all gun specifications, were dismissed. The trial court sentenced Williams to a six-year term of imprisonment on each count to be served concurrent with each other. This term was to be served concurrently with a six month sentence Williams received in Montgomery County Case 01CR1518, after violating the terms of his Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (ILC). Thus, in total, the court ordered appellant to serve six years of incarceration. This appeal followed.
{¶ 4} In its brief, the State concedes that pursuant toState v. Comer,
{¶ 5} R.C.
{¶ 6} At Williams' sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that "the judgment and sentence of the court with respect to both charges is that you be confined for a period of six years at the Ohio Dept. Of Rehabilitation and Correct. These sentences are ordered to be served concurrently." Nothing else was mentioned on the record in regard to Williams' sentence. Therefore, as the State concedes, the trial court did fail to make necessary statutory findings on the record when imposing Williams' sentence.
{¶ 7} Accordingly, in light of this concession and based on the foregoing reasons we find Williams' first assignment of error well-taken. As we have determined that the trial court failed to make the appropriate findings to sentence Williams on the record, his second assignment of error challenging the sentence as harsh or excessive is rendered moot. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Grady, J., and Young, J., Concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.