State v. Austin

2025 Ohio 2940

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 18, 2025
• Docket: 1-24-66
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Austin, 2025-Ohio-2940.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 1-24-66 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

TAKAL L. AUSTIN, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR2023 0017

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: August 18, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Joseph Sobecki for Appellant

John R. Willamowski, Jr. for Appellee Case No. 1-24-66

WALDICK, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Takal Austin (“Austin”), appeals the October 1,

2024 judgment of sentence entered against him in the Allen County Court of

Common Pleas, following Austin’s pleas of guilty to Tampering with Evidence and

Involuntary Manslaughter with a firearm specification. On the basis of the legal

authority set forth below, we affirm.

Procedural History

{¶2} This case originated on February 16, 2023, when an Allen County grand

jury returned a three-count indictment against Austin, charging him as follows:

Count 1 – Aggravated Murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), with a firearm

specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A); Count 2 – Murder, in violation of R.C.

2903.02(A), with a firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A); and Count

3 – Murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), with a firearm specification pursuant

to R.C. 2941.145(A).

{¶3} On February 24, 2023, an arraignment was held and Austin pled not

guilty to all counts in the indictment. Nineteen months of pretrial proceedings then

ensued.

{¶4} On September 25, 2024, the case was resolved with a negotiated plea

of guilty. At that time, Austin pled guilty to Count 3 of the indictment, amended to

a charge of Involuntary Manslaughter, a first-degree felony in violation of R.C.

2903.04(A), with the original firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A). -2- Case No. 1-24-66

Austin also pled guilty to a bill of information charging him with Tampering with

Evidence, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1). In exchange for

those pleas of guilty, the prosecution dismissed Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment.

{¶5} On October 1, 2024, a sentencing hearing was held. On the amended

Count 3 of the indictment, Austin was sentenced to an indefinite prison term of a

minimum eleven years to a potential maximum of sixteen and one-half years, and

to an additional three-year prison term for the firearm specification. On the sole

count of the bill of information, Austin was sentenced to thirty-six months in prison.

The trial court ordered that all sentences be served consecutively. The trial court

also ordered that the sentences imposed for the Involuntary Manslaughter and the

firearm specification were mandatory prison terms. The trial court then journalized

its sentencing orders by judgment entry filed that same date.

{¶6} On October 31, 2024, Austin filed the instant appeal, in which he raises

one assignment of error for our review.

Assignment of Error

The trial court erred by sentencing Austin to a mandatory term of imprisonment for Involuntary Manslaughter based partly on a mandatory term of imprisonment for a firearm specification.

{¶7} In the sole assignment of error, Austin argues that the trial court erred

in imposing a mandatory prison term on the portion of the sentence on Count 3, as

amended, that relates to his conviction for Involuntary Manslaughter. Specifically,

while Austin acknowledges that a mandatory prison term was required for the

-3- Case No. 1-24-66

firearm specification on Count 3, he argues that the Ohio Revised Code does not

require that a mandatory prison term be imposed for the underlying felony

conviction itself. In making this argument, Austin asks that this Court reconsider

our decision in State v. Wolfe, 2022-Ohio-96 (3d Dist.), in which we held that a trial

court is statutorily required, pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(F)(8), to impose a mandatory

prison term for a felony conviction that has a corresponding firearm specification.

{¶8} Based upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio on this

very issue in State v. Logan, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1772, we find Austin’s

argument to lack merit.

{¶9} The assignment of error is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶10} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant, Takal

Austin, in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Allen County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.

-4- Case No. 1-24-66

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is

overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby

rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the

judgment for costs.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s

judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.

27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the

proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.

Juergen A. Waldick, Judge

William R. Zimmerman, Judge

Mark C. Miller, Judge

DATED: /jlm

-5-