[Cite as State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-376.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-150320
TRIAL NO. B-1403896
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
O P I N I O N.
vs. :
FONTE WILLIAMS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Appeal Dismissed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 5, 2016
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Arenstein & Gallagher, William R. Gallagher and Elizabeth Conkin, for Defendant-
Appellant.
Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
M OCK , Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Fonte Williams was originally charged with one
count of aggravated murder, one count of murder, and two counts of felonious
assault, all with accompanying firearm specifications. He pleaded guilty to one count
of a reduced charge of involuntary manslaughter under R.C. 2903.04(A), with one
accompanying firearm specification, and one count of felonious assault under R.C.
2903.11(A)(2). The trial court dismissed the two remaining charges and all other
firearm specifications.
{¶2} Under the terms of an agreed sentence, the trial court sentenced
Williams to 11 years’ imprisonment on the involuntary manslaughter count, plus
three years for the firearm specification. It also sentenced him to eight years’
imprisonment on the felonious-assault count. The court ordered that all of the
sentences be served consecutively, for a total of 22 years. This appeal followed.
{¶3} In his sole assignment of error, Williams contends that the trial court
committed plain error in ordering him to serve the sentences for the two offenses
consecutively. He argues that the two offenses were allied offenses of similar import
that should have been merged for sentencing.
{¶4} Under R.C. 2953.08(D), a sentence that has been recommended jointly
by the defendant and the prosecution and imposed by a sentencing judge is not
subject to appellate review if it is authorized by law. State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio
St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 16; State v. Livingston, 2014-Ohio-1637,
9 N.E.3d 1117, ¶ 4 (1st Dist.). A sentence is authorized by law and is not appealable
only if it comports with all mandatory sentencing provisions. Underwood at
paragraph two of the syllabus.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶5} In Underwood, the Ohio Supreme Court also held that when a
sentence is imposed for multiple convictions on offenses that are allied offenses of
similar import, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar appellate review of the sentence
even though it was jointly recommended by the parties and imposed by the court. Id.
at paragraph one of the syllabus. But the court set forth an exception to that general
rule. It stated, “nothing in this decision precludes the state and a defendant from
stipulating in the plea agreement that the offenses were committed with separate
animus, thus subjecting the defendant to more than one conviction and sentence.”
Id. at ¶ 29.
{¶6} The Ohio Supreme Court later reiterated that statement. In State v.
Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, the court discussed the
difference between waiver and forfeiture. It defined “waiver” as “an intentional
relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” It then stated, “It is possible for
an accused to expressly waive the protection afforded by R.C. 2941.25 such as ‘by
stipulating in the plea agreement that the offenses were committed with separate
animus.’ ” Id. at ¶ 20, quoting Underwood at ¶ 29.
{¶7} Further, other appellate districts have held that by stipulating that two
or more offenses were committed separately or with a separate animus, the
defendant waived the allied-offense issue. Therefore, the sentences in those cases
were not contrary to law. See State v. Lung, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2014-12-081,
2015-Ohio-3833, ¶ 11-12; State v. Booker, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101886, 2015-
Ohio-2515, ¶ 17-19; State v. Moll, 3d Dist. Defiance Nos. 4-14-17 and 4-14-18, 2015-
Ohio-926, ¶ 11-16; State v. Bryant, 5th Dist. Richland No. 14CA23, 2014-Ohio-4661,
¶ 8-13.
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶8} After some discussion, Williams ultimately agreed that the offenses were
committed with a separate animus. While describing the terms of the plea agreement,
the prosecutor told the court that “the Defendant is agreeing that, in fact, these two
crimes were created [sic] with a separate animus, as a result they are not allied offenses
of similar import, and he’s agreeing that they should not be merged but rather he can be
sentenced consecutively on those counts.” Williams’s counsel, responded that “[w]e’re
in agreement.” He further stated, “Judge, he wants to proceed. We have a plea
agreement, an agreed plea, and we ask the Court to accept that and proceed with
sentencing.”
{¶9} The parties clearly included consecutive sentences as part of the plea
agreement, which benefited Williams because the state dismissed two of the charges
against him, as well as several firearm specifications, and reduced the most serious
charge against him to a lesser offense. The agreement falls squarely within the exception
set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court in Underwood, and we hold that Williams waived
the allied-offense issue.
{¶10} Williams argues that the state conceded that the plea agreement could be
vacated if a higher court found that the two offenses did not arise out of a separate
animus and should not have been merged. Essentially, he is arguing that he did not
waive his right to appeal the sentence. The record does not support this assertion.
Williams specifically agreed that the two offenses were committed with a separate
animus. In discussing the agreement, the state added that “he’s agreeing that if for some
reason a higher court were to determine that that was not correct, that it was remanded,
we can simply proceed on the original indictment.” This statement simply clarified what
the agreement was, but as an agreed plea, it did not render the sentence appealable.
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶11} Because the sentences comported with all mandatory-sentencing
provisions, they were authorized by law. Consequently, this court is without jurisdiction
to review the sentences. See State v. Noling, 136 Ohio St.3d 163, 2013-Ohio-1764, 992
N.E.2d 1095, ¶ 22; State v. Tisdale, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2007-T-0122, 2008-Ohio-
5452, ¶ 11-12; State v. Knisely, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-07-37, 2008-Ohio-2255, ¶ 12;
State v. Simmons, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-050817, 2006-Ohio-5760, ¶ 5. Because
Williams only challenges his sentences, and not the guilty findings, we dismiss the
appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
F ISCHER , P.J., and S TAUTBERG , J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.
5