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 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Watson

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 831
• Docket Number: 115151, 115502

• Judges: Forbes

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (4.7K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Crim.R. 43(A)(1); consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.41; R.C. 2929.14; courses of conduct. Appellant contested term of imprisonment arising from guilty plea. Case remanded for resentencing where court failed to sentence appellant for one of the charged offenses at hearing, attempting to do so only in a subsequent sentencing entry, in violation of Crim.R. 43(A)(1). Court also erred in announcing at hearing that it was running all prison terms consecutively, violating R.C. 2929.41 where appellant's convictions included both felonies and misdemeanors. Court also failed to make a complete "courses of conduct" finding at hearing under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) to support its imposition of consecutive sentences. On remand, court instructed to make consecutive-sentencing findings in accordance with R.C. 2929.41 and 2929.14, as merited by the record.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Watson, 2026-Ohio-831.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :
Nos. 115151 and 115502
v. :

BRANDON WATSON, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 12, 2026

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case Nos. CR-24-692419-A, CR-24-692427-A, and CR-24-693938-A

Appearances:

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

Flowers & Grube and Louis E. Grube, for appellant.

LISA B. FORBES, P.J.:

Brandon Watson (“Watson”) appeals his sentence for various

offenses, including robbery and domestic violence. After a thorough review of the
facts and the law, we reverse the trial court’s judgment in part, vacate Watson’s

sentence in part, and remand this case for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

I. Procedural History

A. Indictments in Three Related Cases

In the summer of 2024, Watson was indicted in three cases that were

resolved together. On June 10, 2024, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-24-692427-A

(“Weapons Case”), Watson was charged with Count 1, having weapons while under

disability, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2); Count 2,

discharge of firearm on or near prohibited premises, a third-degree felony, in

violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3), with one- and three-year firearm specifications

under R.C. 2941.141(A) and 2941.145(A), respectively; Count 3, carrying a concealed

weapon, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(1); and Count 4,

improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, a fourth-degree felony, in violation

of R.C. 2923.16(B). These charges arose from events alleged to have occurred on or

about March 10, 2024.

On June 13, 2024, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-24-692419-A (“April

Robbery Case”), Watson was charged with Count 1, robbery, a second-degree felony,

in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(2); Count 2, robbery, a third-degree felony, in

violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(3); Count 3, grand theft of a motor vehicle, a fourth-

degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1); Count 4, unauthorized use of a

vehicle, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2913.03(B); and Count 5, domestic
violence, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). These charges

arose from events alleged to have occurred on or about April 27, 2024.

On July 30, 2024, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-24-693938-A (“July

Robbery Case”), Watson was charged with Count 1, aggravated robbery, a first-

degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and Count 2, robbery, a second-

degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2). Both Counts 1 and 2 were

accompanied by one- and three-year firearm specifications under R.C. 2941.141(A)

and 2941.145(A), respectively. Counts 1 and 2 also both included a notice-of-prior-

conviction specification under R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) and a repeat-violent-offender

specification under R.C. 2941.149(A). Watson was also charged with Count 3, theft,

a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), with a one-year firearm

specification under R.C. 2941.141(A); and Count 4, domestic violence, a first-degree

misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). These charges arose from events

alleged to have occurred on or about July 20, 2024.

B. Watson’s Guilty Plea

On October 30, 2024, the court held a plea hearing, at which Watson

pled guilty in all three cases. In the Weapons Case, Watson pled guilty to Count 1,

having weapons while under disability, and amended Count 2, discharge of firearm

on or near prohibited premises, a third-degree felony, in violation of

R.C. 2923.162(A)(3), with a one-year firearm specification under R.C. 2941.141(A).

The State nolled all other counts and specifications.
In the April Robbery Case, Watson pled guilty to amended Count 2,

attempted robbery, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and

2911.02(A)(3), and Count 5, domestic violence. Regarding Count 5, Watson agreed

to no contact with the victim. All other counts were nolled.

In the July Robbery Case, Watson pled guilty to amended Count 2,

robbery, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(3), and Count 4,

domestic violence. Regarding Count 4, Watson agreed to no contact with the victim.

All other counts and specifications were nolled.

C. Sentencing and This Appeal

On November 20, 2024, the trial court held a sentencing hearing

regarding all three cases. Pertinent to this appeal, during the hearing, the court

announced, “In case 693938 [the July Robbery Case] 36 months to be imposed on

Count Two, followed by 180 days on Count Four [for domestic violence] . . . then in

case 692419 [the April Robbery Case], I’m going to sentence you to 18[]months.”

The court also ordered that Watson serve his prison terms consecutively to one

another, stating, “I’m going to order that all counts run consecutively in each case

for a total sentence of 11 and a half years . . . .” The court addressed its reason for

imposing consecutive sentences as follows: “The harm was so great or unusual that

a single term does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct here.

Additionally, your criminal history shows that consecutive terms are needed to

protect the public.”
Also on November 20, 2024, the trial court issued journal entries

concerning Watson’s sentence in all three cases. Pertinent to this appeal, the journal

entry related to the April Robbery Case reflected that the court had sentenced

Watson to an 18-month term of imprisonment on Count 2 for attempted robbery

and “Count 5: M1, 180 Day(s).” The journal entry also noted that Watson’s 18-

month sentence was to run consecutively to the sentences imposed in the Weapons

Case and in the July Robbery Case. The court stated that it “impose[d] prison terms

consecutively,” based in part on its finding that

[a]t least two of the multiple offenses were committed in this case as
part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by said
multiple offenses 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 defendant’s conduct.

The j0urnal entry related to the July Robbery Case reflected that

Watson’s sentence on Count Two, robbery, was 36 months’ incarceration, and on

Count Four, domestic violence, was 180 days’ incarceration. Further, the journal

entry explained that the 36-month sentence on Count 2 was to run consecutively to

the sentences in the Weapons Case and the April Robbery Case. The court reiterated

the “course of conduct” findings identified in the sentencing entry for the

April Robbery Case.

Similarly, in the journal entry concerning the Weapons Case, the

court ordered Watson to serve his sentence consecutively to the sentences in the

April Robbery Case and the July Robbery Case, making the same consecutive-

sentencing findings.
Watson appeals, raising the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred by journalizing a harsher sentence in the April
   robbery case than it imposed during Watson’s sentencing hearing in
   violation of Crim.R. 43(A), U.S. Const., Amend XIV, and Ohio Const.,
   Art. I, § 10.

2. The trial court erred by running Watson’s misdemeanor sentences
   consecutively to his felony sentences in violation of R.C. 2929.41(A).

3. The trial court’s consecutive sentencing orders are contrary to law
   because the court failed to make its “courses of conduct” finding during
   Watson’s sentencing hearing.

4. The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences because its
   course of conduct findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) clearly and
   convincingly lack support in the record.

5. The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences because its
   “history of criminal conduct” finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c)
   clearly and convincingly lacks support in the record.

II. Law and Analysis

A. Assignment of Error No. 1 — Watson’s Sentence for his
Domestic-Violence Conviction in the April Robbery Case

Regarding the April Robbery Case, Watson asserts that the court

erred by sentencing him for his domestic-violence conviction in its journal entry

after failing to do so during the sentencing hearing. The State concedes that “the

trial court failed to impose a sentence on Count Five in [the April Robbery Case],

which was the Domestic Violence misdemeanor.” We find that the record supports

this assignment of error.

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) addresses appellate review of sentencing,

providing that the court of appeals “shall review the record, including the findings

underlying the sentence . . . given by the trial court.” This court may “increase,
reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence . . . [or] vacate the sentence and remand

the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing” if it “clearly and convincingly

finds” that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).

Pursuant to Crim.R. 43(A)(1), “the defendant must be physically

present at every stage of the criminal proceeding . . . including . . . the imposition

of sentence, except as otherwise provided by these rules.” “A trial court cannot

impose a sentence in the sentencing entry that differs from what it imposed at the

sentencing hearing.” State v. Sandidge, 2020-Ohio-1629, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.), citing

State v. Vaughn, 2016-Ohio-3320, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.). Where a court does not impose

a sentence for an offense at the sentencing hearing but does include a sentence for

that offense in the journal entry, the sentence in the journal entry must be reversed

and the matter remanded for a new sentencing hearing. See State v. Goines, 2017-

Ohio-8172, ¶ 44-46 (8th Dist.). See also State v. Stroud, 2024-Ohio-933 (1st Dist.)

(case remanded for resentencing where trial court did not impose a term of

imprisonment at hearing but did include one in the sentencing entry); State v.

Patrick, 2013-Ohio-3821, ¶ 11 (4th Dist.) (sentence contrary to law where the

sentence announced in open court differed from that in the sentencing entry);

State v. Vanscoy, 2014-Ohio-3482, ¶ 23 (9th Dist.) (vacating portion of

defendant’s sentence that was identified in the sentencing entry but was not

ordered at the sentencing hearing).

During the sentencing hearing, concerning the April Robbery Case,

the court stated: “I’m going to sentence to you 18[]months.” As discussed, in that
case, Watson pled guilty to two charges — attempted robbery and domestic violence.

The court did not specify on which of these two offenses it imposed the 18-month

prison term. However, we note that an 18-month prison term would exceed the

allowable sentence for Watson’s domestic-violence conviction. See

R.C. 2929.24(A)(1) (regarding a conviction for a first-degree misdemeanor, “the

court shall impose a definite jail term” of “not more than one hundred eighty days”).

An 18-month sentence would be allowable for attempted robbery.

See R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b) (The prison term for a fourth-degree felony “shall be a

definite term” that cannot exceed “eighteen months.”).

The sentencing journal entry reflects a prison sentence of 18 months

on Count 2 for attempted robbery and goes on impose a term of 180 days of

incarceration on Count 5 for domestic violence. Notably, at the sentencing hearing,

the trial court did not impose any term of incarceration whatsoever in connection

with Count 5 for domestic violence.

Given the foregoing, we find clearly and convincingly that Watson’s

sentence in the April Robbery Case was contrary to law. Accordingly, assignment of

error No. 1 is sustained.

B. Assignment of Error No. 2 — Consecutive Sentencing for Felony
and Misdemeanor Convictions

In his second assignment of error, Watson asserts that the trial court

erred by “running [his] misdemeanor sentences consecutively to his felony

sentences, in violation of R.C. 2929.41(A).” We agree.
R.C. 2929.41 imposes limits on a court’s ability to order consecutive

sentences. With statutory exceptions that do not apply here, “a jail term or sentence

of imprisonment for misdemeanor shall be served concurrently with a prison term

or sentence of imprisonment for a felony. . . .” R.C. 2929.41(A). “[P]ursuant to

R.C. 2929.41(A)[,] a trial court must impose concurrent sentences for felony and

misdemeanor convictions unless the exception within R.C. 2929.41(B)(3) for certain

motor vehicle offenses applies.” State v. Studgions, 2016-Ohio-4701, ¶ 3 (8th Dist.),

citing State v. Polus, 2016-Ohio-655. This court remanded Studgions for further

proceedings upon finding that the trial court erred by imposing 11-year and 180-day

terms of incarceration on aggravated-robbery and child-endangering convictions,

respectively, and ordering that the defendant serve these terms consecutively. Id. at

¶ 2.

During Watson’s sentencing hearing, the court stated, “I’m going to

order that all counts run consecutively in each case . . . .” Because Watson was

sentenced for misdemeanor domestic violence as well as various felony offenses,

running all counts consecutively violated R.C. 2929.41(A). Moreover, in connection

with the July Robbery Case, the trial court stated explicitly that the 180-day

misdemeanor sentence “followed” the 36-month sentence on the felony robbery

charge.

We note that the trial court’s journal entries in the April Robbery Case

and the July Robbery Case, both of which included sentences for Watson’s plea of

guilty to at least one felony along with one misdemeanor domestic-violence charge,
do not reflect that the misdemeanor and felony sentences are ordered to run

consecutively to one another. However, as addressed in assignment of error No. 1,

“A trial court cannot impose a sentence in the sentencing entry that differs from

what it imposed at the sentencing hearing.” Sandidge, 2020-Ohio-1629, at ¶ 6.

Given the foregoing, we find clearly and convincingly that Watson’s

sentences in the April and July Robbery Cases were contrary to law. Accordingly,

assignment of error No. 2 is sustained.

C. Assignment of Error No. 3 — Consecutive-Sentencing Findings
Under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)

Watson argues that the court failed to make the required findings

under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences. We agree.

A defendant’s multiple prison sentences are presumed to be served

concurrently unless the trial court makes the required findings to support

consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). R.C. 2929.41(A); State v. Jones,

2024-Ohio-1083, ¶ 11. “[T]o impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial

court is required to make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the

sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry . . . .” State

v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 37. Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the court must

find that consecutive sentences are “necessary to protect the public from future

crime or to punish the offender”; “not disproportionate to the seriousness of the

offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public”; and at least

one of the following three factors:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while
the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction . . .
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.

Regarding R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b), this court has stated,

The statute requires the trial court to find both that (1) the offenses
were committed as one or more courses of conduct, and (2) that the
harm caused was so great or unusual that a single prison term is not an
adequate reflection on the seriousness of the conduct.

(Emphasis in original.) State v. McKinney, 2019-Ohio-1118, ¶ 60 (8th Dist.). “The

trial court [is] required to make both findings, if warranted, before finding that

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) [is] satisfied.” Id.; accord State v. Percy, 2021-Ohio-1876,

¶ 14 (8th Dist.) (Case remanded for resentencing where the court imposed

consecutive sentences based on its assessment of harm to the victim but “failed to

find that offenses were committed as one or more courses of conduct.”).

In its journal entries, the court included the full text of

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) to support its imposition of consecutive sentences. During

Watson’s sentencing hearing, however, the court explained that it was imposing

consecutive sentences because “[t]he harm was so great or unusual that a single term

does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct here.” We find that, as in
McKinney, the court failed to find that at least two of Watson’s multiple offenses

were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct under

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b). While the court acknowledged during the hearing that

Watson had a criminal history, it made no such finding in its sentencing journal

entry. Given the foregoing, we find clearly and convincingly that the imposition of

consecutive sentences was contrary to law. Accordingly, we find that assignment of

error No. 3 is sustained.

D. Assignments of Error Nos. 4 and 5 — Record Support for the
Court’s Imposition of Consecutive Sentences

For convenience, we address together assignments of error Nos. 4 and

5, in which Watson asserts that the record did not support the trial court’s

imposition of consecutive sentences based on his “courses of conduct” and causation

of “great or unusual harm” under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) or his “criminal history”

under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c). We find that assignments of error Nos. 4 and 5 are

moot and thus overruled in light of our resolution of the other assignments of error.

Having found above that the court failed to make the findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)

required to impose consecutive sentences, we render no opinion as whether the

record supported a consecutive-sentencing order.

Having sustained assignments of error Nos. 1, 2, and 3, judgment

reversed in part. Watson’s sentence in the April Robbery Case is vacated, and this

matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

Watson’s sentences in the July Robbery Case and the Weapons Case are vacated in

part. The July Robbery Case is remanded for the limited purpose of addressing the
consecutive-sentence requirements set forth in R.C. 2929.41 and 2929.14(C)(4), as

appropriate. The Weapons Case is remanded to the trial court for the limited

purpose of addressing the consecutive-sentence requirements set forth in

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), as appropriate. All other aspects of the sentence imposed in the

journal entries and not addressed in this opinion remain intact.

Judgment reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to the trial

court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

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.

LISA B. FORBES, PRESIDING JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR