[Cite as State v. Williams ,
2021-Ohio-1956.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 109903
v. :
MICAH WILLIAMS, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: REVERSED; REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 10, 2021
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-05-469067-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Tasha L. Forchione, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellant.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
Appellant, the state of Ohio, appeals the decision of the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas granting judicial release to appellee Micah Williams
(“Williams”), over the state’s objection. This court has acknowledged that a
judgment granting judicial release is a modification of a sentence which the state
has the right to appeal. State v. Costlow, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89501, 2008-Ohio-
1097, ¶ 9.
The state sets forth one assignment of error, specifically:
The trial court’s decision granting judicial release and modifying
appellee’s sentence which was imposed for felonies of the first degree
was contrary to law where the trial court failed to make findings on the
record and list the factors presented at the hearing as required by R.C.
2929.20(J).
The facts of this case are set forth in State v. Williams, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 88737, 2007-Ohio-5073, wherein this court affirmed the convictions
but vacated that portion of the sentence ordering Williams to solitary confinement
on both the victim’s birthdays and the anniversaries of her death. A petition to this
court for reopening, filed pro se, was denied. State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 88737,
2008-Ohio-1099. Williams also filed, pro se, a complaint for a writ of
procedendo which was denied. Williams v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100450,
2014-Ohio-1439. Finally, in State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100639,
2014-Ohio-3589, this court affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate.
Williams was sentenced to an aggregate term of 30 years: three of
those being imposed for a firearm specification to be served prior, and consecutive,
to consecutive terms of ten years for involuntary manslaughter, six years each for
the crimes of aggravated robbery and kidnapping and five years for tampering with
evidence. The trial court also imposed a term of five years of postrelease control.
On July 7, 2020, Williams filed a motion for judicial release pursuant
to R.C. 2929.20 to which the state filed a brief in opposition.
On August 18, 2020, a hearing was held at which appellant was
represented by an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecuting attorney who presented
two family members of the victim of these crimes as well as Maple Heights Police
Chief Todd Hansen, all of whom made statements to the court. Williams,
represented by counsel, was present via video from a penal institution. Williams’
counsel presented his mother who made a statement to the court. Counsel also
presented to the court letters in support of Williams, including one from an
individual who guaranteed employment for Williams.
On August 20, 2020, the trial court granted Williams’ motion for
judicial release. The court found “after due consideration of the record, the exhibits
admitted, R.C. 2929.11, the warden’s report under R.C. 2929.20(G) and any oral or
written statements prepared, and the statements of the victim or the victim’s
representative (if any), … that defendant is eligible for judicial release and has
served any mandatory prison time.”
Williams was then placed on five years of community control
sanctions with a multitude of conditions. He was further advised that a violation of
community control sanctions would result in him serving the remainder of his
sentence with five years of mandatory postrelease control.
The state argues that, as Williams was imprisoned for several felonies
of the first degree, the trial court was required, pursuant to R.C. 2929.20(J), to make
specific findings, which the trial court failed to do in this case.
R.C. 2929.20(J)(1) provides:
A court shall not grant a judicial release under this section to an eligible
offender who is imprisoned for a felony of the first or second degree …
unless the court, with reference to factors under section 2929.12 of the
Revised Code, finds both of the following:
(a) That a sanction other than a prison term would adequately
punish the offender and protect the public from future criminal
violations by the eligible offender because the applicable factors
indicating a lesser likelihood of recidivism outweigh the
applicable factors indicating a greater likelihood of recidivism;
(b) That a sanction other than a prison term would not demean
the seriousness of the offense because factors indicating that the
eligible offender’s conduct in committing the offense was less
serious than conduct normally constituting the offense.
Pursuant to R.C. 2929.20(J)(2), a court that grants a judicial release
to an eligible offender under R.C. 2929.20(J)(1) shall specify on the record both the
findings required in that division and also shall list all the factors described in that
division that were presented at the hearing.
Williams concedes that the trial court failed to make the necessary
findings and, further, agrees with the state that unless and until those findings are
made, this court cannot determine whether the decision of the trial court granting
judicial release was supported by the record.
The state’s assignment of error is well taken. The trial court’s
judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry out this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_________________________
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
