State v. Williams

[Cite as State v. Williams, 

.]




                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                      LUCAS COUNTY


State of Ohio                                           Court of Appeals No. L-25-00034

        Appellee                                        Trial Court No. CR-24-2362

v.

Tyler Williams                                          DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                       Decided: November 7, 2025

                                         …
        Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
        Randy L. Meyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Laurel Kendall, for appellant.
                                                 …

        MAYLE, J.

        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Tyler Williams, appeals the January 29, 2025 judgment

of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, convicting him of involuntary

manslaughter and discharge of a firearm on a prohibited premises, and accompanying

firearm specifications. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment.

                                               I. Background

        {¶ 2} On September 19, 2024, Tyler Williams was indicted on charges of

aggravated murder, a violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) and (G) (Count 1); murder, a violation

of R.C. 2903.02(B) and 2929.02 (Count 2); felonious assault, a violation of R.C.

2903.11(A)(2) and (D), a second-degree felony (Count 3); and discharge of a firearm on
or near a prohibited premises, a violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) and (C)(4), a first-

degree felony (Count 4). All counts carried with them three-year firearm specifications

under R.C. 2945.145(A).

       {¶ 3} Williams entered a plea of guilty to a lesser included offense of Count 2,

involuntary manslaughter, a violation of R.C. 2903.04(A) and (C), a first-degree felony;

Count 4; and the firearm specifications that accompanied Counts 2 and 4. As part of his

plea agreement, Williams and the State jointly recommended “a prison sentence of 20

years (not including the indefinite tail) to be served in totality without early release, and

consecutive to his sentence in CR21-3047, for a total minimum stated prison term of 30

years.”

       {¶ 4} Consistent with this joint recommendation, on Count 2, the trial court

sentenced Williams to a minimum stated prison term of ten and years and a maximum

stated prison term of 15 years. As to Count 4, it imposed a minimum stated prison term

of seven years and a maximum stated prison term of ten years and six months. The three-

year firearm specifications attached to both offenses were ordered to be served

concurrently to one another, but consecutively to the terms imposed for Counts 2 and 4,

which were also ordered to be served consecutively to one another. The court also

ordered Williams’s sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in Lucas

County case No. CR0202103047.

       {¶ 5} Williams appealed. He assigns the following error for our review:

              The trial court committed plain error, or in the alternative, abused its
       discretion, when it accepted a plea to involuntary manslaughter without


2.
       establishing the predicate offense necessary to classify the level of felony
       associated with the offense.

                                    II. Law and Analysis

       {¶ 6} Williams entered a plea of guilty to involuntary manslaughter under R.C.

2903.04(A). R.C. 2903.04(A) provides that “[n]o person shall cause the death of another

. . . as a proximate result of the offender’s committing or attempting to commit a felony.”

Williams argues that the trial court erred in accepting his plea to involuntary

manslaughter because the predicate offense making the offense a first-degree felony was

not specified on the record. He claims that because the predicate offense was not

specified, there is a question of fact whether he understood the nature of the charges and

whether Count 4 was the predicate felony or simply a related second offense.

       {¶ 7} The State responds that a plea of guilty is a complete admission of the

defendant’s guilt, and the State is not required to set forth a factual basis supporting the

guilty plea. It insists that the guilty plea itself provides all the necessary proof of the

elements of the offense, and here, during the plea colloquy, Williams completely

acknowledged his guilt as to all elements of both offenses. As such, the State urges,

Williams’s plea of guilty to involuntary manslaughter under R.C. 2903.04(A) constituted

a complete admission that he committed the underlying felony.

       {¶ 8} A plea of guilty is a complete admission of the defendant’s guilt. Crim.R.

11(B)(1). When a person enters a guilty plea, he waives the right to require the state to

prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). “The guilty

plea itself provides all the necessary proof of the elements of the offense and is sufficient


3.
evidence to support the conviction.” State v. Stroub, 

 (3d Dist.), citing

State v. Fuller, 

, ¶ 105 (12th Dist.).

       {¶ 9} In State v. Fenderson, 

 (6th Dist.), we held that a plea of

guilty to involuntary manslaughter under R.C. 2903.04(A) constitutes an admission to all

elements of that offense, including that the defendant committed an underlying felony

that proximately caused the victim’s death. Because Williams admitted the elements of

the offense when he entered his plea, the state was not required to prove that Williams

committed a felony that proximately caused the victim’s death, the court was not required

to make a finding that Williams committed the underlying felony, and the underlying

felony was not required to be identified in any way at the plea hearing.

       {¶ 10} In any event, the indictment specifies that the underlying felony was

felonious assault. “A plea of guilty is generally regarded as an admission of every

material fact well-pleaded in the indictment[.]” State v. Drzayich, 

, ¶ 12

(6th Dist.). As such, when Williams entered a plea to the lesser included offense of Count

2, he admitted that he committed the predicate felony identified in Count 2.

       {¶ 11} We find Williams’s assignment of error not well-taken.

                                     III. Conclusion

       {¶ 12} Williams’s plea of guilty was an admission to all elements of the offense of

involuntary manslaughter under R.C. 2903.04(A), including the underlying felony

identified in the indictment. The state was not required to prove that Williams committed

an underlying felony, the court was not required to make a finding that Williams

committed the underlying felony, and the underlying felony was not required to be

4.
identified at the plea hearing. We affirm the January 29, 2025 judgment of the Lucas

County Court of Common Pleas. Williams is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal

under App.R. 24.

                                                                         Judgment affirmed.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.



 Christine E. Mayle, J.
                                                                   JUDGE

 Gene A. Zmuda, J.
                                                                   JUDGE

 Myron C. Duhart, J.
 CONCUR.                                                           JUDGE




          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.




5.