State v. Bolden

Bolden, 2025 Ohio 2010 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025) · Ohio Court of Appeals · June 5, 2025 · No. 114504

Summary

This Ohio Court of Appeals opinion reviews a criminal defendant’s sentence following guilty pleas to aggravated robbery, having weapons while under disability, and failure to comply with a peace officer’s signal. The appellate court found that the trial court erroneously believed it was statutorily required to impose a mandatory prison term for the failure-to-comply count merely because prison terms were imposed on other counts, and failed to properly consider community control sanctions. Additionally, the court noted clerical discrepancies between the oral sentencing hearing and the written journal entry, as well as an improperly imposed restitution order not pronounced at sentencing. Consequently, the judgment is reversed and remanded for full resentencing.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Writing for the Court
Deena R. Calabrese; Eileen A. Gallagher; Emannella D. Groves
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
June 5, 2025
Docket number
114504
Procedural posture
Criminal appeal from Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-24-690050-A
Standard of review
clear and convincing evidence
Precedential value
published
Parties
Marvier Bolden v. State of Ohio
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

appellate jurisdictionstandard of reviewsentencingcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court considered the factors required by R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(b) and the possibility of a community‑control sanction for count 7.
  2. Whether the trial court was required to impose a mandatory prison term for failure to comply under R.C. 2921.331(D) when prison terms were imposed on other counts.
  3. Whether the sentencing journal entry accurately reflected the oral sentencing hearing.
  4. Whether restitution may be imposed without a verbal pronouncement at the sentencing hearing.

Holdings

  1. The trial court erred by failing to consider the statutory factors and by treating a community‑control sanction as mandatory; the sentence is reversed and remanded for resentencing.
  2. The statute imposes only a consecutive‑sentence mandate, not a mandatory prison term; the trial court’s imposition of a mandatory term was erroneous.
  3. The journal entry contained clerical errors that do not affect the reversal; the case is remanded for a correct nunc pro tunc entry.
  4. Restitution ordered without oral pronouncement is error; the case is remanded for resentencing and proper restitution entry.

Key quotations

‘[R.C.] 2929.11 for the principles and purposes of sentencing, 2929.12 for the seriousness and recidivism factors, and 2929.13 and other Revised Code Sections for felony sentencing.’
‘R.C. 2921.331(D) requires a trial court to impose consecutive sentences for violations of R.C. 2921.331(B), but only if a prison term is imposed.’

Factual background

In January 2024 Bolden, a juvenile, seized a Lyft vehicle, brandished a firearm, and fled. Police pursued, resulting in a crash and his apprehension. He was indicted on twelve counts and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, having weapons while under disability, and failure to comply with a peace officer's order.

Procedural history

Bolden pleaded guilty to three counts in August 2024 and was sentenced to a total of 60‑78 months with restitution. He appealed alleging errors in consideration of statutory factors, mandatory prison imposition for failure to comply, inaccurate sentencing journal entry, and improper restitution order.

Remand instructions

Full resentencing on all counts, with correct consideration of R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(b) factors, discretionary community‑control options, accurate journal entry, and proper restitution order.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…