State v. Walters

2025 Ohio 5746

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 25-COA-007
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Walters, 2025-Ohio-5746.]

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO Case No. 25-COA-007

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 24-CRI-179 L’KEZIAH WALTERS Judgment: Affirmed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry:December 22, 2025

BEFORE: CRAIG R. BALDWIN, P.J., ROBERT G. MONTGOMERY, KEVIN W. POPHAM, J.; Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL for Plaintiff-Appellee; BRIAN A. SMITH, for Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

Popham, J.,

{¶1} Defendant-appellant L’Keziah Walters appeals the judgment entered by the

Ashland County Court of Common Pleas convicting her following pleas of guilty to having

weapons while under disability and receiving stolen property, and sentencing her to an

aggregate term of incarceration of forty-two months. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of

Ohio. For the reasons below, we affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

{¶2} On May 14, 2023, an officer observed a blue Dodge Caravan with dealer

plates passing him on the roadway. The vehicle made a right-hand turn without utilizing its turn signal. Thus, the officer ran a LEADS report on the vehicle. The LEADS report

indicated the license plates on the vehicle were stolen. The officer initiated a traffic stop

and made contact with Walters, the driver of the vehicle, who stated the vehicle and the

items inside belonged to her girlfriend. Walters told the officer she did not have any

weapons on her. However, when the officer did a pat-down for safety, he located a loaded

handgun in Walters’ pocket. The subsequent investigation revealed the vehicle was

stolen, and that there was a large amount of stolen merchandise in the vehicle. The

vehicle also contained a backpack with ammunition inside of it.

{¶3} Walters was indicted by the Ashland County Grand Jury with having

weapons under disability, a felony of the third degree, carrying a concealed weapon, a

felony of the fourth degree, receiving stolen property, a felony of the fifth degree, and

possessing criminal tools, a felony of the fifth degree. Some of the counts had

accompanying specifications.

{¶4} Walters pled guilty to Count 1 (having weapons while under disability) and

the accompanying specification (forfeiture of a weapon while under disability), and Count

3 (receiving stolen property) and the two accompanying specifications (forfeiture of a

weapon while under disability and a firearm specification). The State dismissed Counts

2 (carrying a concealed weapon) and 4 (possessing criminal tools). The trial court

sentenced Walters to twenty-four months in prison for having weapons under disability,

six months in prison for receiving stolen property, and twelve months in prison for the

accompanying firearm specification, to be served consecutively. Walters’ aggregate

sentence totaled forty-two months in prison. The trial court memorialized Walters’

sentence in a March 24, 2025, judgment entry. {¶5} Walters appeals from the March 24, 2025, judgment entry of the Ashland

County Court of Common Pleas, and assigns the following as error:

{¶6} “THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN IMPOSING

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ON APPELLANT, BECAUSE ITS FINDINGS UNDER

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.”

I.

{¶7} Walters argues the trial court’s findings in support of its imposition of

consecutive sentences were not supported by the record. We disagree.

{¶8} As an initial matter, Walters did not object to the imposition of consecutive

sentences. We therefore review this assignment of error for plain error. An error not

raised in the trial court must be plain error for an appellate court to reverse. State v. Long,

53 Ohio St.2d 91, 91 (1978); Crim.R. 52(B). In order to prevail under a plain error

analysis, Walters bears the burden of demonstrating that the outcome of the trial clearly

would have been different but for the error. Id. Notice of plain error “is to be taken with

the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest

miscarriage of justice.” Id.

{¶9} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides:

(4) If 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 finds that the consecutive service is

necessary to protect the public from future crimes or to punish the offender

and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,

and if the court also finds any of the following:

(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the

offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed

pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or

was under post-release control for a prior offense.

(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or

more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the

multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single

prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses

of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.

(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive

sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the

offender.

{¶10} The trial court must make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing

hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to

state reasons to support its findings, nor must it recite certain talismanic words or phrases

in order to be considered to have complied. State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 29.

{¶11} The Supreme Court of Ohio recently clarified the standard of review this

Court is to apply in reviewing consecutive sentences, and stated as follows:

The statute does not permit an appellate court to simply substitute its view

of an appropriate sentence for that of the trial court. An appellate court’s

inquiry is limited to a review of the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C) findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Only when the court of appeals concludes that the

record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings or

it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law is it

permitted to modify the trial court’s sentence.

…

Though “clear and convincing” is typically thought of as an evidentiary

standard, the General Assembly has chosen to use that standard as the

measure for an appellate court’s review of a trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)

findings. As we have explained, ‘clear and convincing evidence’ is a degree

of proof that is greater than a preponderance of the evidence but less than

the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard used in criminal cases. Gwynne,

173 Ohio St. 3d 525, 2023-Ohio-3851, 231 N.E.3d 1109, at ¶ 14 (lead

opinion), citing Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954),

paragraph three of the syllabus. The appellate-review statute does not

require that the appellate court conclude that the record supports the trial

court’s findings before it may affirm the sentence. Rather, the statute only

allows for modification or vacation only when the appellate court ‘clearly and

convincingly finds’ that the evidence does not support the trial court’s

findings. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). ‘This language is plain and unambiguous

and expresses the General Assembly’s intent that appellate courts employ

a deferential standard to the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings.

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) also ensures that an appellate court does not simply substitute its judgment for that of a trial court.’ Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851,

231 N.E.3d 1109 at ¶ 15 (lead opinion).

State v. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, ¶¶ 43-46.

{¶12} In this case, the trial court found as follows: consecutive sentences are

necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish Walters; the sentence is not

disproportionate to the seriousness of the offenses and the danger posed by Walters; the

offenses were committed while Walters was on probation, and Walters’ criminal history

demonstrates consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public.

{¶13} Walters argues that, although she has a lengthy prior criminal history, the

majority of the prior convictions are related to “a potential substance abuse issue,” and

five years has passed since between Walters’ most recent felony conviction and this

conviction.

{¶14} The record reflects that Walters has an extensive criminal history, starting

in 2010. She committed an offense in most of the years in which she was not

incarcerated. Her previous convictions include those for criminal damaging, no operator’s

license, possession of drugs, felonious assault, forgery, attempted tampering with

evidence, and receiving stolen property. Walters was placed on probation several times,

and violated her probation by obtaining new charges. Walters was placed on probation

in 2021, which was scheduled to end in September of 2023. This incident occurred in

May of 2023, while Walters was still on probation. While Walters’ recent criminal history

may not have included multiple offenses of violence, her past history includes a conviction

for felonious assault, and demonstrates a continued pattern of reoffending. We find

Walters’ past criminal history and the facts of the instant offenses support the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences were appropriate in the instant case. The trial court’s

imposition of consecutive sentences was supported by the record.

{¶15} Walters also contends the trial court’s findings were not properly supported

by the record because she was amenable to community control. However, as noted

above, Walters was on probation for a prior offense at the time she committed these

offenses. Simply because Walters advocated for a treatment-based sentence does not

make the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences unsupported by the record,

particularly in a plain-error analysis.

{¶16} Finally, Walters argues that, despite the fact that the trial court never

specifically referenced or stated, either at the sentencing hearing or in its sentencing

entry, that it considered her invocation of her right against self-incrimination, the court

somehow improperly considered Walters’ silence in its imposition of consecutive

sentences. Walters maintains that because the trial court stated it “reviewed the

statements of counsel” and because the prosecutor at sentencing stated that Walters’

assertion that she did not know the items in the vehicle were stolen “is probably not true

… and she is not exactly honest with law enforcement when they do interact with her in

this case,” the trial court violated Walters’ right against self-incrimination.

{¶17} Most obviously, the trial court never stated it considered Walters’ silence in

its imposition of consecutive sentences. Rather, the trial court listed several specific

reasons as to why consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public, none

relating to Walters’ alleged silence when she spoke to police. These included: her

extensive criminal record, specifically her prior felony conviction with a firearm

specification, her ORAS score of 25 that indicated a moderate risk of reoffending, the fact that she was in prison four times before, and the fact that she was on probation at the

time she committed these offenses. A trial court’s mention that it “reviewed” the

statements of the prosecutor does not equate to the trial court improperly utilizing the

statement the prosecutor made in its imposition of consecutive sentences, particularly in

a plain error analysis. In addition, the language the prosecutor used was not definitive

(using words such as “probably” and “not exactly”), and did not specifically mention

Walters’ invocation of her right against self-incrimination. Further, the prosecutor was not

arguing for consecutive sentences, the prosecutor was arguing against the imposition of

community control. As detailed above, the trial court made the appropriate findings, which

were supported by the record.

{¶18} Upon review of the record, we find the trial court made the appropriate

findings and the court’s imposition of consecutive sentences was supported by the record.

Walters has therefore failed to demonstrate plain error. Accordingly, Walters’ assignment

of error is overruled. For the reasons stated in our Opinion, the judgment of the Ashland County Court

of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Costs to Appellant, L’Keziah Walters.

By: Popham, J.

Baldwin, P.J. and

Montgomery, J., concur