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 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Wilson

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 929
• Docket Number: 115162

• Judges: S. Gallagher

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

Vacate; sentence; plea agreement; violated; agreed sentence; jointly recommended sentence; sentencing range; greater sentence; withdraw; due process; ineffective assistance; resentencing. Vacated appellant's sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. The State failed to fully set forth the jointly recommended sentence at the time of sentencing and arguably violated the plea agreement. The trial court did not expressly indicate whether it was accepting or rejecting the jointly recommended sentencing range, and it is unclear what occurred. Appellant was not given the opportunity to withdraw her guilty pleas, her due-process rights were violated, and ineffective assistance of counsel was shown.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2026-Ohio-929.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 115162
v. :

SHA’LON WILSON, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 19, 2026

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-24-689134-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Halie Turigliatti, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
Nowell A. Powell-Sacks, Assistant Public Defender, for
appellant.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.:

Appellant Sha’lon Wilson appeals from the sentence imposed in this

case. Upon review, we vacate the sentence and remand the case to the trial court

for resentencing.

Background

On March 1, 2024, Wilson was charged under a five-count indictment

with offenses arising from an alleged drive-by shooting incident in which a gunshot

was fired into a home. The alleged circumstances surrounding the incident are set

forth in the record before us. Wilson pleaded not guilty to the charges at her

arraignment. Subsequently, she reached a plea agreement with the State.

At a hearing held on September 23, 2024, the assistant prosecutor set

forth the terms of the plea agreement, including the amended charges to which

Wilson would be pleading guilty, the charges that would be nolled, an agreed no

contact with a victim, an agreement to forfeit all weapons seized, and “a

recommended sentence range of 3 to 7 years,” which the State confirmed “would

include Reagan Tokes time.” The trial court asked if that meant the presumptive

minimum “would be 2 to 5 and-a-half basically,” which the assistant prosecutor

confirmed.1 Defense counsel also confirmed this was his understanding of the

agreement.

1 We recognize this was not a precise calculation.
The trial court engaged in a proper Crim.R. 11 colloquy with Wilson,

during which Wilson was informed of the maximum penalties involved. The trial

court informed Wilson that there was “an agreed range of 3 to 7 years” and that

although the parties “can recommend a sentence,” the court was “not obligated to

go along with it” and could sentence Wilson “within any range I feel would be

proper.” Wilson confirmed her understanding that the trial court was not bound “by

the 3 to 7-year sentence.” She proceeded to enter a plea of guilty to Count 1 as

amended to improperly discharging firearm at or into a habitation or in a school

safety zone, a felony of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2923.161(A)(1), with a

one-year firearm specification; and to Count 2 as amended to intimidation of

attorney, victim, or witness in a criminal case, a felony of the third degree in violation

of R.C. 2921.04(B)(1). The remaining counts were nolled.

A sentencing hearing was held on October 17, 2024. The trial court

indicated that it had reviewed the presentence-investigation report, and the court

heard from defense counsel, the assistant prosecutor, two victims, and Wilson.

During the sentencing hearing, the State asked the court to impose “the high end of

the 3 to 7 years,” which was the “recommended range,” but did not indicate that the

recommended range included Reagan Tokes time or whether it included one year

for the firearm specification.2

2 At oral argument it was indicated that the jointly recommended range of three to

seven years was to include one year for the firearm specification. This clarification was
not provided to the trial court.
Ultimately, the trial court imposed a sentence on Count 1 of one year

on the firearm specification to be served prior to and consecutive with an indefinite

sentence of seven to ten and one-half years on the base charge; and on Count 2, a

concurrent term of 36 months. No objection was raised. Wilson has appealed.

Law and Argument

Wilson raises four assignments of error on appeal. Wilson claims (1)

the State violated the plea agreement by failing to accurately recite the agreed

sentencing range and by asking the court to impose a longer sentence than the

agreed range, (2) the trial court erred when sentencing her to more time than what

was contemplated by the plea agreement, (3) the record does not support the

sentence that was imposed, and (4) she did not receive effective assistance of counsel

because defense counsel failed to object to the State violating the plea agreement at

sentencing.

The primary challenges raised by Wilson arise from a plea agreement

with a jointly recommended sentence. The plea agreement that was placed on the

record by the State before Wilson entered her guilty pleas included a jointly

recommended sentencing range of three to seven years, which the State confirmed

included Reagan Tokes time. The parties essentially agreed that Wilson’s sentence

would not exceed seven years, which was inclusive of an indefinite tail. Yet, at the

time of sentencing, the State asked the trial court to impose “the high end” of the

jointly recommended sentencing range of three to seven years and did not mention

that this included Reagan Tokes tail time pursuant to the plea agreement or whether
this included one year for the firearm specification. Although this was likely an

oversight, it was arguably in contravention of the plea agreement. As argued by

Wilson, without specifying the Reagan Tokes time, “in asking for the ‘high end’ of

the range, the State asked for something that would necessarily violate the [plea]

agreement.”

“When an allegation is made that a plea agreement has been broken,

the defendant must merely show that the agreement was not fulfilled.” State v.

Smith at ¶ 35, citing State v. Legree, 61 Ohio App.3d 568, 573 (6th Dist. 1988).

Ordinarily, where the State breaches a plea agreement, the defendant may move to

withdraw a guilty plea or seek to specifically enforce the agreement. State v. Grove,

2016-Ohio-2721, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Brunning, 2013-Ohio-930, ¶ 9 (8th

Dist.).3 However, a trial court is not bound to impose a jointly recommended

sentence.

As the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated: “Judges in Ohio are not

bound by plea agreements or jointly recommended sentences” and “are free to reject

both.” State v. Brentlinger (In re Navarre), 2024-Ohio-3336, ¶ 28, citing State v.

Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 28. Moreover, “[a] trial court does not err by imposing

a sentence greater than that forming the inducement for the defendant to plead

guilty when the trial court forewarns the defendant of the applicable penalties,

3 The record herein shows that Wilson sought to withdraw her guilty pleas, albeit

on a different basis, and the trial court denied the request.
including the possibility of imposing a greater sentence than that recommended by

the prosecutor.” (Cleaned up.) State v. Buchanan, 2003-Ohio-4772, ¶ 13.

We recognize that the trial court had explained to Wilson at the time

of entering her guilty pleas that it was not obligated to impose a sentence within the

recommended sentencing range of three to seven years as expressed by the parties.

Although the transcript shows that the trial court was concerned at sentencing by

the seriousness of the offenses and Wilson’s “significant” criminal history, it is

unclear from the record whether the trial court intended to accept or reject the

jointly recommended sentencing range. Indeed, it is entirely plausible that the court

was mistakenly led to believe that it was imposing a sentence within the jointly

recommended sentencing range.

As this court has previously stated, “When a trial court decides not to

impose the agreed, recommended sentence, it should clearly advise a defendant of

its intentions, and allow the defendant to reconsider his [or her] plea.” State v.

Jordan, 2024-Ohio-2361, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Swortchek, 2020-Ohio-

2831, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.). Thus, if in fact the trial court decided that it was not going to

impose a sentence within the jointly recommended sentencing range, it should have

expressly informed Wilson of this. Given that this did not occur, it is more likely

that the trial court herein was acting upon the belief that it was imposing a sentence

at the “high end” of the jointly recommended sentencing range.

This case highlights the problems associated with so-called “agreed

sentences” and the importance of providing clarity on the record to ensure the
defendant’s and the court’s understanding of a jointly recommended sentence.4 Not

only is it imperative for a defendant to fully understand what the jointly

recommended sentence is and that the trial court is not bound thereby, but also the

parties must ensure that the trial court is fully informed of the calculations involved.

Here, the parties loosely expressed a jointly recommended sentencing range of “3 to

7 years,” which merely was stated to include Reagan Tokes time. The parties failed

to specify whether one year for the firearm specification was included in that range

and failed to articulate the indefinite sentence with the tail time. Without such

clarity from the parties, the trial court was not fully apprised of the jointly

recommended sentence under the plea agreement. To avoid such pitfalls, parties

should clearly articulate all aspects of a jointly recommended sentence at the time

of the plea and at sentencing.

This case also shows the importance of expressly informing a

defendant whether the trial court is accepting or rejecting a jointly recommended

sentence contemplated under the plea agreement. As this court has previously

explained:

With regard to an agreed sentence that forms the basis of the
plea, the sentence itself is part of the quid pro quo for the agreed plea.
Although the trial judge is free to accept or reject that agreement, it is
incumbent upon the court to do so expressly. To hold otherwise creates

4 Under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) there is no such term as an “agreed sentence” or

“agreed upon sentence.” The statute only states that the sentence is not reviewable if (1)
it is authorized by law; (2) it was jointly recommended; and (3) it is imposed. The term
has become a nomenclature for a “jointly recommended and imposed sentence.”
a false expectation in the mind of the defendant over the underlying
nature of the plea agreement.

State v. Huffman, 2018-Ohio-1192, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.). Here, there are too many

assumptions that need to be made that arguably erode the defendant’s and the trial

court’s understanding of the plea agreement and the sentence Wilson would receive.

Under the circumstances presented, not only did the State fail to fully

set forth the jointly recommended sentence, but also, the trial court did not expressly

indicate whether it was accepting or rejecting the recommended sentence, and it is

not clear from the record what occurred. We are compelled to find there was a

violation of Wilson’s due-process rights. Additionally, we find Wilson has shown

ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel’s failure to object at the time

of sentencing was objectively unreasonable, and the deficient performance in this

regard prejudiced Wilson. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984).

On this record, we find there is some merit to the first, second, and

fourth assignments of error. We need not address the third assignment of error,

which is rendered moot.

Upon our review, we vacate the sentence imposed by the trial court

and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule

27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

---

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE

DEENA R. CALABRESE, J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR