State v. Wilson

[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2026-Ohio-1166.]




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


 State of Ohio                                Court of Appeals No. L-25-00130

         Appellee                             Trial Court No. CR0202402114

 v.

 Theodore Wilson                              DECISION AND JUDGMENT

         Appellant                            Decided: April 8, 2026


                                             *****

        Julia R. Bates, Esq., Prosecutor and
        Brenda J. Majdalani, Esq., Assistant Prosecutor, for appellees.

        Tyler Naud Jechura, Esq., for appellant.

                                             *****

      SULEK, J.,

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Theodore Wilson, appeals from the March 10, 2025 judgment of

the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of burglary, one count of gross

sexual imposition, and one count of pandering obscenity and sentencing him to three
concurrent prison terms: (1) a minimum of seven years and a maximum of ten-and-a-half

years; (2) 18 months; and (3) 18 months. Wilson’s single assignment of error challenges

the length of his prison term. For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.

                             I. Facts and Procedural History

       {¶ 2} On August 13, 2024, the Lucas County Grand Jury indicted Wilson on one

count of burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(1) and (D), a felony of the second

degree (count 1); one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(5)

and (C), a felony of the fourth degree (count 2); and one count of pandering obscenity in

violation of R.C. 2907.32(A)(2) and (C), a felony of the fourth degree (count 3).

       {¶ 3} The charges in the indictment stemmed from an incident on the night of

August 8, 2024 in which Wilson entered a woman’s apartment through an open window

and engaged in sexual contact with her while she was sleeping. Before leaving the

victim’s apartment, Wilson took a photo of his genitals with the victim’s phone.

       {¶ 4} Although Wilson initially pleaded not guilty, he withdrew his plea and

entered a guilty plea to all three counts pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. In

exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend a seven-year prison term.

The plea agreement form sets forth the possible sentences for each of Wilson’s offenses.

For burglary, the form states that the basic prison term was “2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 years

[plus] 50% of stated term.” The form specifies that no other promises or threats have

been made to induce the defendant into entering into the agreement and states that “the



2.
State and the defendant, pursuant to R.C. 2953.008(D)(1), jointly recommend a sentence

of 7 years to be served.” Finally, the form includes a section explaining indefinite prison

terms for first- and second-degree felonies, explaining that “there is a rebuttable

presumption that [the defendant] shall be released from service of the sentence at the

expiration of [the defendant’s] minimum term or presumptive early release date,

whichever is earlier.” In addition to the plea agreement, Wilson also signed a form

entitled “Rebuttal of Presumption of Release,” which states, “The Court further notifies

the defendant that on a non-life felony indefinite prison term, the Ohio Department of

Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC) may maintain the defendant’s incarceration

beyond the minimum term if it makes specified findings rebutting the presumption of

release.” The form then explains that even if the release presumption is rebutted, the

defendant’s incarceration may be extended but cannot exceed the defendant’s maximum

term, and any hearing to extend the incarceration would occur through the ODRC, not the

sentencing court.

       {¶ 5} During the plea hearing, the trial court engaged in a Crim.R. 11 colloquy

with Wilson, which included the following exchange:

       THE COURT: Have any threats or promises been made to you to get you
       to enter into this plea?

       THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

       THE COURT: Has anyone told you that I promised a sentence?

       THE DEFENDANT: Nope.




3.
       THE COURT: I do understand there’s a recommendation. I have not
       indicated that I would follow it. Do you understand that?

       THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

The trial court discussed the possible penalties it could impose for each charge, including

the maximum possible prison terms, and informed Wilson “[f]or the offense of

burglary … you receive a minimum and maximum sentence.” In addition, the trial court

also questioned Wilson to ensure he understood the forms he signed as follows:

       THE COURT: You’ve signed the rebuttal of presumption of release form.
       Did you go over that form?

       THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

       THE COURT: Any questions about that form?

       THE DEFENDANT: No.

Following the colloquy, the trial court accepted Wilson’s guilty plea.

       {¶ 6} On March 10, 2025, Wilson appeared for sentencing. At the outset of the

hearing, the trial court said the following:

       Before I proceed with sentencing, something about that process stuck out to
       me, and it has to do with the agreed upon sentence. And I think that I
       didn’t fully understand what the totality of the sentencing agreement was.
       Was the – I know the State in the past has taken their legal position that the
       mere fact that someone agrees to an agreed upon sentence they must serve
       their entire sentence, which is what I thought the position the State was
       taking. Or was this something negotiated between the parties?

The trial court then held a discussion at the bench off the record with the parties before

proceeding with the sentencing hearing. After notifying Wilson of his obligations to

register as a sex offender, the trial court heard from the victim, Wilson, and the State.



4.
The State recommended that the trial court impose the sentence in the plea agreement.

The trial court did so, stating as follows:

       I am going to follow the recommendation of the parties and order the
       following sentences. I hereby find that you are not amenable to community
       control. Prison is consistent with the principles and purposes of sentencing.
       Therefore, I order the following prison terms. For the offense of burglary,
       Count 1, a felony of the second degree, you’re going to serve a minimum
       sentence of 7 up to a maximum sentence of 10 and a half years; Count 2,
       gross sexual imposition, hereby order you serve a prison term of 18
       months; Count 3, pandering obscenity, hereby order you serve a sentence of
       18 months. I’m going to order that those sentences be served concurrent to
       one another. For a total stated prison term of 7 years – minimum of 7 years
       to a maximum of 10 and a half years in the State penitentiary.

Wilson did not object, question, or otherwise attempt to challenge the sentence imposed.

       {¶ 7} The trial court’s sentencing entry reflected the sentence imposed at the

sentencing hearing. Wilson filed a timely appeal of his sentence.

                                  II. Assignment of Error

       {¶ 8} Wilson asserts a single assignment of error for review: “The sentence given

by the trial court was excessive, as it was beyond the agreed upon sentencing

recommendation.”

                                   III. Law and Analysis

       {¶ 9} In support of his assignment of error, Wilson argues that pursuant to R.C.

2953.08(G)(2)(a), his sentence must be “modified to a maximum of seven years” because

“the record is devoid of clear and convincing evidence as to why [Wilson] did not

deserve the seven-year sentence he relied upon in exchange for his plea of guilty.”




5.
       {¶ 10} Felony sentencing challenges are reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

That statute permits an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a

sentence, or vacate a sentence and remand the matter for resentencing where the court

clearly and convincingly finds:

       (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division
       (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or
       division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;

       (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). However, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) provides that a sentence “is not

subject to review under this section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been

recommended jointly by the defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by

a sentencing judge.”

       {¶ 11} Here, pursuant to the plea agreement, the State and Wilson jointly

recommended that the trial court impose a seven-year sentence. As the plea agreement,

the Rebuttal of Presumption of Release form, and the trial court’s statements during the

plea colloquy explained, because Wilson pleaded guilty to a second-degree felony,

burglary, the trial court was required by the Reagan Tokes law to impose a minimum

term and a maximum term fifty percent longer than the minimum term. R.C. 2929.144.

The trial court therefore imposed a minimum term of seven years and a maximum term of

ten-and-a-half years. Wilson appears to be arguing that the trial court’s imposition of a

maximum term greater than seven years violated the plea agreement and therefore his

sentence was contrary to law.



6.
       {¶ 12} In State v. Billman, 2025-Ohio-211 (7th Dist.), pursuant to a plea

agreement, the appellant and the State jointly recommended a five-year prison term. Id.

at ¶ 3. The trial court imposed a prison term of five to seven-and-a-half years in

compliance with the Reagan Tokes law. Id. at ¶ 4. The Seventh District held that the

sentence was not reviewable because the trial court imposed the jointly recommended

sentence. Id. at ¶ 11. Just as the trial court did in Billman, the trial court here imposed

the jointly recommended sentence, and its imposition of a ten-and-half year maximum

term required by the Reagan Tokes law was simply part of the jointly recommended

sentence. Indeed, the plea agreement expressly provided notice to Wilson that he may be

subject to a minimum indefinite sentence and a maximum definite sentence. Accordingly,

R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of Wilson’s sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G).

       {¶ 13} Wilson’s assignment of error is found not well-taken.

                                      IV. Conclusion

       {¶ 14} Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of

Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, costs of this appeal are assessed to

Wilson.

                                                                         Judgment affirmed.




7.
                                                           State of Ohio v. Theodore Wilson
                                                      Appeals Court Case No.: L-25-00130
                                                      Trial Court Case No.: CR0202402114




       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.


 Gene A. Zmuda, J.
                                                                   JUDGE

 Myron C. Duhart, J.
                                                                   JUDGE

 Charles E. Sulek, J.
 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/.




8.