[Cite as State v. Thompson,
2025-Ohio-4825.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NOS. C-240720
C-240721
Plaintiff-Appellee, : TRIAL NOS. B-2400038
B-2400870
vs. :
JAKARI THOMPSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. : JUDGMENT ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the appeals, the record, and the briefs.
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgments of the
trial court are affirmed.
Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for these appeals,
allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.
The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the
Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial
court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk:
Enter upon the journal of the court on 10/22/2025 per order of the court.
By:_______________________
Administrative Judge
[Cite as State v. Thompson, 2025-Ohio-4825.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NOS. C-240720
C-240721
Plaintiff-Appellee, : TRIAL NOS. B-2400038
B-2400870
vs. :
OPINION
JAKARI THOMPSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 22, 2025
Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Candace Crear, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Angela J. Glaser, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Jakari Thompson appeals his sentence following guilty pleas to
involuntary manslaughter in the case numbered B-2400038 and involuntary
manslaughter with a gun specification in the case numbered B-2400870. In his sole
assignment of error, Thompson contends that the trial court erred when it sentenced
him to consecutive sentences without making a proportionality finding in compliance
with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the
trial court.
Factual Background
{¶2} On January 10, 2024, Jakari Thompson was indicted for two counts of
murder with specifications, felonious assault with specifications, and having weapons
while under a disability in the case numbered B-2400038. The State alleged that
Thompson shot and killed H.L. When the State discovered that H.L. was pregnant at
the time of her death, a second indictment charged Thompson with murder with
specifications and involuntary manslaughter with specifications in the case numbered
B-2400870. The cases were joined for purposes of trial.
{¶3} In the case numbered B-2400038, Thompson agreed to plead guilty to
a reduced charge of involuntary manslaughter with a specification. In exchange, the
State dismissed a second gun specification, the murder charge, the felonious-assault
charge with specifications, and having weapons while under a disability. In the case
numbered B-2400870, Thompson agreed to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter
with one specification, and the State dismissed a second gun specification and the
murder charge.
{¶4} Thompson and the State agreed on a potential sentence of “11 years” in
the case numbered B-2400038 to “run consecutive to the sentence in case B2300870.”
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
The plea agreement in the case numbered B-2400870 included a jointly recommended
sentence of “four years plus one year on the gun specification for a total sentence of
five years, to run consecutive to case B2400038, Reagan Tokes to apply to case
B2400038, for a total aggregate sentence with case B2400038 of 16-21 ½ years.”
After ensuring that Thompson’s guilty pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily entered, the court accepted the pleas and found Thompson guilty.
Thompson waived the presentencing investigation, and the parties proceeded to
sentencing.
{¶5} In allocution, Thompson admitted to shooting H.L. and claimed it was
an accidental shooting. Thompson also admitted that when he called 911, he lied and
said the victim had shot herself. Thompson and the prosecutor asked the court to
impose the agreed sentence. The victim’s mother asked the court to impose the
maximum possible sentence.
{¶6} The trial court deviated from the jointly recommended sentence by
increasing the sentence on the involuntary-manslaughter conviction in the case
numbered B-2400870 from four years to six years. In all other respects, the court
imposed the recommended sentence resulting in an aggregate sentence of 18 to 23½
years instead of the recommended sentence of 16 to 21½ years.
{¶7} Thompson appeals, and in his sole assignment of error, he contends that
the trial court erred when it sentenced him to consecutive sentences without making
a proportionality finding in compliance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Consecutive Sentencing
{¶8} When reviewing felony sentences, this court must apply the standard of
review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1, 59.
“Under that statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
it may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it clearly and
convincingly finds either: (1) the record does not support the sentencing court’s
findings under certain enumerated statutes, or (2) the sentence is otherwise contrary
to law.” Id. at ¶ 9.
{¶9} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states that “[i]f multiple prison terms are imposed
on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender
to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court” makes certain findings. “Because
the statute ‘permits, but does not require, a trial court to impose consecutive
sentences,’ it ‘is not a mandatory sentencing provision.’” State v. Riggins, 2025-Ohio-
3028, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Howard, 2017-Ohio-9392, ¶ 54 (4th Dist.), citing
State v. Sergent,
2016-Ohio-2696, ¶ 28-30.
{¶10} Generally, a trial court is required to make findings before imposing
consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See State v. McDonald, 2021-Ohio-
599, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.). However, a trial court’s imposition of a jointly-recommended
sentence is not subject to review if it is authorized by law. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1); Sergent
at ¶ 15; State v. Williams,
2025-Ohio-1345, ¶ 43 (1st Dist.). In Sergent, the Ohio
Supreme Court held that “in the context of a jointly recommended sentence that
includes nonmandatory consecutive sentences, a trial court is not required to make
the consecutive-sentence findings set out in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).”
Sergent at ¶ 43.
{¶11} Citing to State v. Porterfield, 2005-Ohio-3095, the Court reiterated
that, “a joint recommendation to impose consecutive sentences eliminates the need
for a trial judge to make the consecutive-sentence findings set out in R.C.
2929.14(C)(4).”
Sergent at ¶ 21, citing
Porterfield at ¶ 25. The Court further explained
that, “The General Assembly intended a jointly agreed-upon sentence to be protected
from review precisely because the parties agreed that the sentence is appropriate.
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Once a defendant stipulates that a particular sentence is justified, the sentencing judge
no longer needs to independently justify the sentence.” Id. at 22.
{¶12} In this case, the jointly recommended sentence included nonmandatory
consecutive sentences. Thompson agreed to serve his sentences consecutively, but he
did not agree to the specific sentence imposed on the involuntary-manslaughter
conviction. Although the trial court deviated from the recommendation by increasing
the sentence from four to six years, Thompson entered the plea agreement knowing
that his sentences would run consecutively.
{¶13} In a similar case involving a defendant who “agreed to permit the trial
court discretion to impose any sentence within the range for the first-degree felony”
and agreed to serve his sentences consecutively, the Eighth District Court of Appeals
concluded, “This distinction is of little consequence.” State v. Williams, 2019-Ohio-
1348, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that although
Williams “did not agree to the specific sentence imposed on the underlying
conviction,” he agreed to consecutive terms, and in exchange, the State dismissed
several charges. Id. The court noted that “the base sentence [was] potentially
reviewable,” but held that the agreement to consecutive terms “relieved the trial court
of the need to justify the consecutive sentence.” Id.
{¶14} Therefore, when the trial judge imposed the jointly-recommended
sentence on Thompson, without making the consecutive-sentencing findings, the
sentence was nevertheless authorized by law and not reviewable on appeal pursuant
to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). See Williams at ¶ 7; Sergent,
2016-Ohio-2696, at ¶ 43.
Accordingly, we overrule the sole assignment of error.
Conclusion
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶15} Having overruled Thompson’s assignment of error, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.
Judgments affirmed.
NESTOR and MOORE, JJ., concur.
7
