Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Elston

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 958
• Docket Number: L-25-00053

• Judges: Mayle

• Opinion

• Authorities (10)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (26.8K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Per Mayle, J., trial court erroneously imposed consecutive sentences as if they were mandatory under R.C. 2921.331(D). Because consecutive sentences were not mandatory, court was not required to inform appellant at plea hearing of the possibility of imposing consecutive sentences. Trial court's inclusion of all possible terms of postrelease control in sentencing entry did not reflect notice it gave at sentencing hearing. Court previously dismissed count so did not need to include it in sentencing entry.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Elston, 2026-Ohio-958.]

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

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. {48}L-25-00053
Appellee
Trial Court No. CR0202402112
v.

Darryl Elston DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: March 20, 2026

---

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and,
Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
for appellee/cross-appellant.

Anthony J. Richardson, for appellant/cross-appellee.

---

MAYLE, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Darryl Elston, appeals the March 4, 2025 judgment of the Lucas

County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to nine months in prison. For the

following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. Background and Facts

{¶ 2} Elston was charged with one count each of having weapons while under

disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a third-degree felony (count 1); failure to

comply with the signal of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B), (C)(1), and

(C)(5)(a)(ii), a third-degree felony (count 2); and receiving stolen property in violation of
R.C. 2913.51(A), a fourth-degree felony (count 3). Elston and the State reached an

agreement under which Elston would plead no contest to count 1, and the State would

dismiss counts 2 and 3 at sentencing due to potential double jeopardy issues arising from

Elston’s conviction in Wood County of charges arising from the same incident.

{¶ 3} At the plea and sentencing hearing, before accepting Elston’s no-contest

plea, the trial court told Elston about the potential prison terms he was facing and that

“[n]o portion of the prison term . . . [is] mandatory.” However, because Elston had

another sentence out of Wood County, the court explained that “there’s some components

of those sentences that will overlap[,]” so the court did not “know exactly what [his]

outdates would be until ODRC calculates.” Elston indicated that he understood those

things.

{¶ 4} After conducting a thorough Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy and accepting

Elston’s no-contest plea, the trial court sentenced him to nine months in prison “of which

zero is mandatory.” Before ordering Elston to serve his sentence in this case

consecutively to his sentence out of Wood County, the court had the following

conversation with court staff and Elston:

THE COURT: Missy, I’m just trying to get a calculation. In terms
of Judge Reger’s sentence at 49 months, my nine months minus 231, will
they calculate the 231 off the top and a remainder would be consecutive if
ordered consecutive?

[STAFF]: Judge, so I believe the way that I’ve seen it in the past,
separate cases, he can only get—like your credit only applies for your case.
So I believe that until he served Judge Reger’s portion, if do you
consecutive, then yours doesn’t even kick in, if that makes sense.

2.
THE COURT: But he’s not going to get—that’s my concern is that, I
know Judge Reger wants his sentence to remain intact, he was thinking
ours may run concurrent, depending on what was happening. I just wanted
to see. You don’t think that, from a calculation point of view, my days will
kick in to separate out until and I know they wouldn’t kick in on his time.

[STAFF]: Yeah, I don’t think they will. It looks like 273 is a nine-
month sentence.

THE COURT: So, I mean, it would just be an additional 60 days.
That shouldn’t kick him over if there’s a judicial release. If he’s at 49, 51,
52 months. I just want to make sure that his motion practice is available for
Judge Reger.

[STAFF]: It’s just got to be under 60 months, Judge.

THE COURT: I think it’s 60.

[STAFF]: He has to file.

THE COURT: He has to file both places.

THE DEFENDANT: So I have to serve his—

THE COURT: No. You just have to file both places. There’s a
magic number in there that if we go over, then you don’t get access to a
judicial release. I wanted to make sure I didn’t tip you through that
process. So mine will be consecutive with credit for 231 days, and a total
nine-month sentence is just a little over 270, so there’s only about 60 days
left on my sentence.

{¶ 5} Regarding postrelease control, the court told Elston, “[i]f you were to serve a

full sentence on this matter, you could face up to two years of post-release control.” It

also informed him of the consequences of violating postrelease control and what would

happen if he were convicted of a new felony while on postrelease control.

{¶ 6} In its sentencing entry, the trial court ordered Elston to serve nine months in

prison. It found that “this must be served consecutively to any other prison term imposed

3.
upon [Elston] pursuant to R.C. 2921.331 (D)[,]” so it ordered him to serve the prison

term in this case consecutively to his prison terms in two cases out of Wood County.

{¶ 7} Regarding postrelease control, the court stated,

Defendant notified of post-release control as follows: Felony Sex
Offense: 5 years mandatory; F-1: 2-5 years mandatory; F-2: 18 months-3
years mandatory; F-3 (offense of violence, R.C. 2901.01(A)(9)): 1-3 years
mandatory; F-3 (other): up to 2 years discretionary; F-4: up to 2 years
discretionary; F-5: up to 2 years discretionary. Defendant further notified
that if post-release control conditions are violated, the adult parole authority
or parole board may impose a more restrictive or longer control sanction or
return Defendant to prison for up to nine months for each violation, up to a
maximum of 50% of the minimum stated term originally imposed.
Defendant further notified that if the violation is a new felony conviction,
Defendant may be both returned to prison for the greater of one year or the
time remaining on post-release control, plus receive a prison term for the
new felony (-ies).

{¶ 8} Finally, the court noted that “[p]ursuant to the request of the State of Ohio a

nolle prosequi is entered as to Count 2[.]”

{¶ 9} Elston now appeals, raising two assignments of error:

(1.) THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY
ACCEPTING APPELLANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY WITHOUT
INFORMING HIM ABOUT THE MANDATORY IMPOSITION OF
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE.

(2.) THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY
SENTENCING APPELLANT TO MANDATORY CONSECUTIVE
SENTENCE WHEN IT WAS IN FACT NOT MANDATORY, AND
REMAND IS NECESSARY FOR RESENTENCING WHERE THE
TRIAL COURT CAN INDICATE WHETHER IT WOULD DO SO
CONSIDERING SUCH IMPOSITION IS NOT MANDATORY.

4.
{¶ 10} Additionally, the State filed a cross-appeal relating to Elston’s sentence:

First Assignment of Error

The trial court erred when, in its sentencing entry, the court recited
all of the possible terms of post-release control instead of reciting the
appropriate term of post-release control specifically applicable to the
defendant.

Second Assignment of Error:

The trial court failed to properly state in its sentencing entry that
Count 3 of the indictment was also nollied by the State.

II. Law and Analysis

A. The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences as if they were
mandatory.

{¶ 11} In Elston’s second assignment of error, he argues that the trial court

incorrectly imposed mandatory consecutive sentences, and we should remand this case

for the court to determine if consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) are

appropriate. The State responds that consecutive sentences were mandatory under R.C.

2921.331(D), so the trial court was not required to consider the factors in R.C.

2929.14(C)(4).

{¶ 12} Under R.C. 2921.331(D), “[i]f an offender is sentenced to a prison term for

a violation of division (B) of [R.C. 2921.331], the offender shall serve the prison term

consecutively to any other prison term or mandatory prison term imposed upon the

offender.” This provision applies to convictions in separate cases, as well as to

convictions in other counties. State v. Johnson, 2025-Ohio-149, ¶ 21 (1st Dist.), citing

State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-914, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.); and State v. Jeffery, 2011-Ohio-2654, ¶

48 (5th Dist.). However, by its own terms, the provision only applies when the offender

5.
“is sentenced” for a violation of R.C. 2921.331(B). (Emphasis added.) Because the

statute is written in the present tense, this indicates “acts, conditions, or states that occur

in the present[.]” Garner, The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation, §

173, at 95 (2016). Thus, for R.C. 2921.331(D) to apply, the offender must presently be

sentenced for the violation of R.C. 2921.331(B). Conversely, if the offender is not

currently being sentenced for a violation of R.C. 2921.331(B)—like Elston in this case—

R.C. 2921.331(D) should not apply.

{¶ 13} This interpretation is supported by R.C. 2929.14(C)(3), which provides,

“[i]f a prison term is imposed for . . . a felony violation of [R.C. 2921.331(B)], the

offender shall serve that prison term consecutively to any other prison term or mandatory

prison term previously or subsequently imposed upon the offender.” Like R.C.

2921.331(D), R.C. 2929.14(C)(3) requires the present imposition of a prison term for a

violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) before the mandatory consecutive sentence provision is

triggered. Further, we were unable to find any cases in which a trial court used R.C.

2921.331(D) to impose mandatory consecutive sentences when it did not also sentence

the offender for a violation of R.C. 2921.331(B).

{¶ 14} Here, Elston was not sentenced for a violation of R.C. 2921.331(B). Thus,

by its very terms, R.C. 2921.331(D) did not apply to Elston’s sentence in this case to

make consecutive sentences mandatory. If the trial court wanted Elston to serve his

sentence in this case consecutively to his sentences from Wood County, it was required to

make the appropriate findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), which it did not do. Therefore,

6.
we find that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. Elston’s second

assignment of error is well-taken.

B. The trial court was not required to warn Elston of the potential for consecutive
sentences.

{¶ 15} In his first assignment of error, Elston argues that he did not enter his plea

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the trial court did not inform him that

he would be serving his sentence consecutively with the Wood County sentences before

it accepted his plea.

{¶ 16} A plea of no contest in a criminal case “must be made knowingly,

intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the

plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio

Constitution.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 (1996). Under Crim.R. 11(C)(2),

“felony defendants are entitled to be informed of various constitutional and

nonconstitutional rights, prior to entering a plea.” State v. Griggs, 2004-Ohio-4415, ¶ 6.

When an appellant seeks to vacate his plea on appeal because

the plea was not entered in a knowing, intelligent and voluntary
manner due to the trial court’s failure to comply with Crim.R. 11, “the
questions to be answered are simply: (1) has the trial court complied with
the relevant provision of the rule? (2) if the court has not complied fully
with the rule, is the purported failure of a type that excuses [an appellant]
from the burden of demonstrating prejudice? and (3) if a showing of
prejudice is required, has the [appellant] met that burden?”

(Brackets in original.) State v. Morgan, 2021-Ohio-3996, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.), quoting State

v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 17. Unless the trial court fails to explain a constitutional

right in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) or completely fails to comply with a portion of Crim.R.

7.
11(C)—e.g., by failing to mention mandatory postrelease control, State v. Sarkozy, 2008-

Ohio-509, ¶ 22—the appellant is required to show prejudice to have his plea vacated.

Dangler at ¶ 13-16.

{¶ 17} Here, Elston contends that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R.

11(C)(2)(a), which requires the court to ensure that the defendant is entering his plea

“with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved . .

. .” However, unless consecutive sentences are mandatory, “‘[u]nder Ohio law, there is

no requirement for the trial court to advise of the possibility that each individual sentence

may be imposed consecutively, such that a plea can be considered as involuntary in the

absence of such an advisement.’” (Brackets in original.) State v. Whitman, 2021-Ohio-

4510, ¶ 30 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Cobbledick, 2020-Ohio-4744, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). Put

another way, when consecutive sentences are discretionary under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a

trial court’s failure to inform a defendant that one prison term may be run consecutively

to another is not a violation of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). Id. at ¶ 31, citing State v. Nave,

2019-Ohio-1123, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.).

{¶ 18} We have already determined that consecutive sentences were not

mandatory in Elston’s case. Thus, the trial court was not required to warn Elston that it

might impose consecutive sentences in order to comply with Crim.R. 11. Therefore,

because the court complied with the relevant portions of the rule, Elston’s no-contest plea

was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Elston’s first assignment of error

is not well-taken.

8.
C. The sentencing entry fails to properly notify Elston of postrelease control.

{¶ 19} In its first cross-assignment of error, the State argues that the trial court

failed to properly notify Elston of the term of postrelease control he is facing when he

finishes his prison term because the trial court’s sentencing entry lists the ranges of

possible postrelease control terms associated with different levels of felonies, as opposed

to stating that Elston is subject to a discretionary term of up to two years of postrelease

control for his third-degree felony conviction. Because the court told Elston of the proper

postrelease control term at his sentencing hearing, the State contends that the court’s error

can be corrected with a nunc pro tunc entry.

{¶ 20} We find that the trial court erred by failing to notify Elston of the term of

postrelease control that it imposed at the sentencing hearing. When a trial court imposes

a prison term on a defendant, it is required to notify the defendant at the sentencing

hearing about postrelease control and is required to incorporate that notice into its

sentencing judgment entry. State v. Jordan, 2004-Ohio-6085, ¶ 17, overruled in part on

other grounds by State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913. The notice the court incorporates

into its sentencing entry must reflect the notice that it gave the defendant at the

sentencing hearing. State v. Qualls, 2012-Ohio-1111, ¶ 19. When a defendant is notified

about postrelease control at the sentencing hearing, but that notification is not properly

reflected in the sentencing entry, the omission can be corrected with a nunc pro tunc

entry. Id. at ¶ 24.

9.
{¶ 21} Here, the trial court correctly told Elston at his sentencing hearing that he

will be subject to a discretionary term of up to two years of postrelease control upon his

release from prison. The sentencing entry, which lists all possible terms of postrelease

control, does not reflect the notice that the court gave Elston at the sentencing hearing.

Moreover, we have previously determined that this type of postrelease control

notification in the sentencing entry is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v.

Thomas, 2026-Ohio-20, ¶ 55-56 (6th Dist.); State v. Whitney, 2025-Ohio-4978, ¶ 20 (6th

Dist.). Because the trial court did not properly notify Elston of postrelease control in the

sentencing entry, we must reverse and remand this case for the purpose of entering a nunc

pro tunc entry that includes only the postrelease control term applicable to Elston.

Therefore, we find that the State’s first cross-assignment of error is well-taken.

D. The trial court previously dismissed count 3.

{¶ 22} In its second cross-assignment of error, the State argues that the trial court

failed to include dismissal of count 3 in the sentencing entry, despite granting the State’s

motion to dismiss both counts 2 and 3 at sentencing.

{¶ 23} The record indicates that the trial court granted the State’s motion to

dismiss count 3 at a pretrial hearing on February 27, 2025. Because the court dismissed

this count before sentencing, there was no reason for the court to include its dismissal of

count 3 in the sentencing entry. Therefore, the State’s second cross-assignment of error

is not well-taken.

10.
III. Conclusion

{¶ 24} For the foregoing reasons, the March 4, 2025 judgment of the Lucas

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a

limited resentencing hearing. At the resentencing hearing, the trial court shall determine

only if consecutive sentences are appropriate under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and, if so, shall

make the necessary statutory findings. The judgment entry from the resentencing hearing

shall include only the term of postrelease control applicable to Elston. The parties are

ordered to divide the costs of this appeal equally under App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed, in part,
reversed, in part, and remanded.

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.

---

Charles E. Sulek, J. JUDGE
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/.

11.