[Cite as State v. Wampler, 2024-Ohio-2833.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. No. 29889 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 1982 CR 00764 : CHARLES KEITH WAMPLER : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellant : :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on July 26, 2024
TIMOTHY B. HACKETT, Attorney for Appellant
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by MICHAEL P. ALLEN, Attorney for Appellee
.............
TUCKER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Charles Keith Wampler appeals from his 2023
resentencing for aggravated murder and other offenses that were committed several
decades ago. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. -2-
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In 1982, after his case was transferred from the juvenile court to the general
division of the common pleas court and after a jury trial, Wampler was convicted of
aggravated murder, rape, abduction, and abuse of a corpse. Wampler was 15 years old
on the night the offenses were committed; he turned 16 at midnight. Wampler was
sentenced to an aggregate sentence of life with an additional nine to 30 years in prison.
{¶ 3} In 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d
309, 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952, which held that a trial court must expressly
consider the youth of a juvenile offender as a mitigating factor before imposing a sentence
of life imprisonment, even if the sentence includes eligibility for parole. This holding was
“essentially codified” in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b), which lists factors to consider when
sentencing a juvenile defendant. State v. Watson, 2023-Ohio-1469, 213 N.E.3d 1175
(5th Dist.). In July 2021, Wampler filed a motion for resentencing in which he argued that
he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing in accordance with Patrick, because the trial
court did not take his youth into consideration at his original sentencing. The trial court
granted the motion, and a hearing was conducted on July 7, 2023.
{¶ 4} At the hearing, the trial court heard arguments from the State and defense
counsel. The court also discussed certain factors relevant to the issue of Wampler’s
youth at the time he committed the offenses. Wampler was then permitted to address
the court. Following Wampler’s allocution, the trial court found that Wampler’s youth at
the time of the offense did “not mitigate the sentence that was originally imposed and [did]
not warrant a lesser sentence being imposed.” Tr. p. 27. The court resentenced -3-
Wampler to the same sentence that it had originally imposed.
{¶ 5} Wampler filed a timely appeal. During the appellate process, it was
discovered that the transcript of the sentencing hearing, specifically Wampler’s allocution,
contained numerous instances where the transcriptionist typed “(indiscernible)” because
she could not understand what Wampler had said. Specifically, in six pages of
statements by Wampler, there were over 80 “indiscernible” notations. Wampler filed a
notice that he was unable to complete the record due to the inadequate recording of the
hearing. He subsequently filed a second notice detailing steps taken to amend the
record to adequately reflect the statements he had made to the court. However, no filing
comporting with App.R. 9(C) was tendered to the trial court or this court. This matter is
now ripe for review.
II. Analysis
{¶ 6} Wampler’s first and second assignments of error state:
THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PRODUCE AN ADEQUATE
RECORDING OF MR. WAMPLER’S ALLOCUTION AT RESENTENCING,
A RIGHT THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HAS DEEMED “ABSOLUTE,”
VIOLATED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO MEANINGFUL APPELLATE
REVIEW. CRIM.R. 32(A); APP.R.9(A)92); FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, SECTION 10
AND 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED MR. WAMPLER’S -4-
CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR, NON-
ARBITRARY, AND IMPARTIAL SENTENCING PROCEEDING, IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION; ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION.
{¶ 7} Wampler claims his allocution during the resentencing hearing refuted the
findings and judgment of the trial court about his resentencing. Thus, he contends the
lack of a complete transcript of his statements prevents him from being able to “raise
various constitutional arguments” regarding the resentencing and also prevents this court
from properly reviewing the trial court’s decision.
{¶ 8} “The importance to meaningful appellate review of a complete, full, and
unabridged transcript of the trial proceedings is well-established.” State v. Walton, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 20615, 2006-Ohio-1974, ¶ 13, citing State ex rel. Spirko v. Judges
of the Court of Appeals, 27 Ohio St.3d 13, 17-18, 501 N.E.2d 625 (1986). Nevertheless,
it is incumbent upon the defendant “to demonstrate how incompleteness in the record
precludes effective appellate review. A general assertion that this is so will not suffice.”
Id. at ¶ 13. “Defendant must demonstrate that effective review will be precluded, and
that prejudice will result from the incompleteness of the record.” Id., citing State v.
Williams, 73 Ohio St.3d 153, 652 N.E.2d 721 (1995). Without an indication that the
defendant has been prejudiced by the absence of items from the record, reversible error
will not be found. Id.
{¶ 9} As noted above, the portion of the sentencing hearing transcript setting forth -5-
Wampler’s allocution to the court contains numerous instances where the transcriptionist
indicated she was unable to discern his words. However, we disagree with Wampler’s
claim that these omissions prevent us from properly reviewing his statements. We also
disagree with his claim that the statements rebut the trial court’s findings.
{¶ 10} Instead, despite the omissions, it is quite clear that Wampler’s statements
were directed at claims unrelated to whether his youth at the time of the offenses was a
mitigating factor sufficient to require a reduction in his sentence. Specifically, Wampler,
who maintained his innocence at resentencing, argued that his convictions were improper
because they were not supported by sufficient evidence. He further argued that he had
been denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and that his trial had been marred
by prosecutorial misconduct. In short, Wampler did not make any statements supporting
his claim that his youth should have been considered a mitigating factor at sentencing.
Thus, his statements had no bearing on the decision of the trial court. Because Wampler
has not shown that the transcript of the sentencing hearing was so inadequate as to
prevent us from reviewing his statements, we conclude that his assignments of error are
without merit.
{¶ 11} We note that, other than disagreeing with the trial court’s findings, Wampler
fails to set forth any claim of error in the resentencing judgment. A review of the record
demonstrates the trial court considered the evidence presented by Wampler and
discussed the factors relevant to his youthfulness at the time of the offenses. The record
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Wampler, 2024-Ohio-2833.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. No. 29889 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 1982 CR 00764 : CHARLES KEITH WAMPLER : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellant : :
...........
OPINION
Rendered on July 26, 2024
TIMOTHY B. HACKETT, Attorney for Appellant
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by MICHAEL P. ALLEN, Attorney for Appellee
.............
TUCKER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Charles Keith Wampler appeals from his 2023
resentencing for aggravated murder and other offenses that were committed several
decades ago. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. -2-
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In 1982, after his case was transferred from the juvenile court to the general
division of the common pleas court and after a jury trial, Wampler was convicted of
aggravated murder, rape, abduction, and abuse of a corpse. Wampler was 15 years old
on the night the offenses were committed; he turned 16 at midnight. Wampler was
sentenced to an aggregate sentence of life with an additional nine to 30 years in prison.
{¶ 3} In 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d
309, 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952, which held that a trial court must expressly
consider the youth of a juvenile offender as a mitigating factor before imposing a sentence
of life imprisonment, even if the sentence includes eligibility for parole. This holding was
“essentially codified” in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b), which lists factors to consider when
sentencing a juvenile defendant. State v. Watson, 2023-Ohio-1469, 213 N.E.3d 1175
(5th Dist.). In July 2021, Wampler filed a motion for resentencing in which he argued that
he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing in accordance with Patrick, because the trial
court did not take his youth into consideration at his original sentencing. The trial court
granted the motion, and a hearing was conducted on July 7, 2023.
{¶ 4} At the hearing, the trial court heard arguments from the State and defense
counsel. The court also discussed certain factors relevant to the issue of Wampler’s
youth at the time he committed the offenses. Wampler was then permitted to address
the court. Following Wampler’s allocution, the trial court found that Wampler’s youth at
the time of the offense did “not mitigate the sentence that was originally imposed and [did]
not warrant a lesser sentence being imposed.” Tr. p. 27. The court resentenced -3-
Wampler to the same sentence that it had originally imposed.
{¶ 5} Wampler filed a timely appeal. During the appellate process, it was
discovered that the transcript of the sentencing hearing, specifically Wampler’s allocution,
contained numerous instances where the transcriptionist typed “(indiscernible)” because
she could not understand what Wampler had said. Specifically, in six pages of
statements by Wampler, there were over 80 “indiscernible” notations. Wampler filed a
notice that he was unable to complete the record due to the inadequate recording of the
hearing. He subsequently filed a second notice detailing steps taken to amend the
record to adequately reflect the statements he had made to the court. However, no filing
comporting with App.R. 9(C) was tendered to the trial court or this court. This matter is
now ripe for review.
II. Analysis
{¶ 6} Wampler’s first and second assignments of error state:
THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PRODUCE AN ADEQUATE
RECORDING OF MR. WAMPLER’S ALLOCUTION AT RESENTENCING,
A RIGHT THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HAS DEEMED “ABSOLUTE,”
VIOLATED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO MEANINGFUL APPELLATE
REVIEW. CRIM.R. 32(A); APP.R.9(A)92); FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, SECTION 10
AND 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED MR. WAMPLER’S -4-
CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR, NON-
ARBITRARY, AND IMPARTIAL SENTENCING PROCEEDING, IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION; ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION.
{¶ 7} Wampler claims his allocution during the resentencing hearing refuted the
findings and judgment of the trial court about his resentencing. Thus, he contends the
lack of a complete transcript of his statements prevents him from being able to “raise
various constitutional arguments” regarding the resentencing and also prevents this court
from properly reviewing the trial court’s decision.
{¶ 8} “The importance to meaningful appellate review of a complete, full, and
unabridged transcript of the trial proceedings is well-established.” State v. Walton, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 20615, 2006-Ohio-1974, ¶ 13, citing State ex rel. Spirko v. Judges
of the Court of Appeals, 27 Ohio St.3d 13, 17-18, 501 N.E.2d 625 (1986). Nevertheless,
it is incumbent upon the defendant “to demonstrate how incompleteness in the record
precludes effective appellate review. A general assertion that this is so will not suffice.”
Id. at ¶ 13. “Defendant must demonstrate that effective review will be precluded, and
that prejudice will result from the incompleteness of the record.” Id., citing State v.
Williams, 73 Ohio St.3d 153, 652 N.E.2d 721 (1995). Without an indication that the
defendant has been prejudiced by the absence of items from the record, reversible error
will not be found. Id.
{¶ 9} As noted above, the portion of the sentencing hearing transcript setting forth -5-
Wampler’s allocution to the court contains numerous instances where the transcriptionist
indicated she was unable to discern his words. However, we disagree with Wampler’s
claim that these omissions prevent us from properly reviewing his statements. We also
disagree with his claim that the statements rebut the trial court’s findings.
{¶ 10} Instead, despite the omissions, it is quite clear that Wampler’s statements
were directed at claims unrelated to whether his youth at the time of the offenses was a
mitigating factor sufficient to require a reduction in his sentence. Specifically, Wampler,
who maintained his innocence at resentencing, argued that his convictions were improper
because they were not supported by sufficient evidence. He further argued that he had
been denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and that his trial had been marred
by prosecutorial misconduct. In short, Wampler did not make any statements supporting
his claim that his youth should have been considered a mitigating factor at sentencing.
Thus, his statements had no bearing on the decision of the trial court. Because Wampler
has not shown that the transcript of the sentencing hearing was so inadequate as to
prevent us from reviewing his statements, we conclude that his assignments of error are
without merit.
{¶ 11} We note that, other than disagreeing with the trial court’s findings, Wampler
fails to set forth any claim of error in the resentencing judgment. A review of the record
demonstrates the trial court considered the evidence presented by Wampler and
discussed the factors relevant to his youthfulness at the time of the offenses. The record
does not reveal any error in the court’s findings, reasoning, conclusions, or judgment.
{¶ 12} Furthermore, though not discussed by either party, this court has limited the -6-
application of Patrick. In State v. Wiesenborn, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29388, 2022-
Ohio-3762, this court addressed the holding in Patrick in relation to a defendant who had
completed all of his appeals, stating:
“A new judicial ruling may be applied only to cases that are pending on the
announcement date. * * * The new judicial ruling may not be applied
retroactively to a conviction that has become final, i.e., where the accused
has exhausted all of his appellate remedies.” Ali v. State, 104 Ohio St.3d
328, 2004-Ohio-6592, 819 N.E.2d 687, ¶ 6. Wiesenborn had no legal right
to the application of Patrick to his case, even if we assume purely arguendo
that it had some benefit to him, because he had no appeal pending when
Patrick was decided. See State v. Hawkins, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2015-CA-16
(Decision and Entry, March 2, 2022) (refusing to apply Patrick on delayed
reconsideration and holding that the rule of Patrick is procedural and does
not apply retroactively). Furthermore, the trial court had no authority simply
to vacate Wiesenborn's sentence, which was final, and to hold a new
sentencing hearing. State v. Carlisle, 131 Ohio St.3d 127, 2011-Ohio-
6553, 961 N.E.2d 671.
(Footnotes omitted.) Id. at ¶ 26. Other appellate districts have considered this issue and
have likewise concluded that Patrick cannot be applied retroactively. See State v.
Jarrett, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111659, 2023-Ohio-811, ¶ 24; State v. Hale, 12th Dist.
Butler Nos. CA2023-03-019 and CA2023-03-021, 2023-Ohio-3199, ¶ 11; State v. White,
1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-230093, 2023-Ohio-4499, ¶ 12. -7-
{¶ 13} Simply put, Wampler was not entitled to resentencing because Patrick does
not apply retroactively. However, any error in permitting a review of his sentence under
Patrick was harmless, because the trial court imposed the same sentence as it had
originally imposed.
{¶ 14} Wampler’s assignments of error are overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 15} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
WELBAUM, J. and LEWIS, J., concur.