[Cite as State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-3456.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

Nos. 103363 and 103369

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

ISHREAL D. WILLIAMS

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case Nos. CR-14-592003-A and CR-14-591913-A 

BEFORE: Stewart, J., Keough, P.J., and McCormack, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 16, 2016 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Allison S. Breneman 

1220 West 6th Street, Suite 303 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

Brian D. Kraft 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Justice Center, 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
MELODY J. STEWART, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ishreal Williams challenges his 23-year sentence for 

aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and receiving stolen property. Specifically, he 

argues that the sentence was so excessive that it effectively amounted to cruel and 

unusual punishment, and that the record does not support the order of consecutive 

sentences. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

{¶2} Williams was indicted in two separate cases, collectively with one count of 

attempted murder, four counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of felonious assault, 

all with one- and three-year firearm specifications, and one count of receiving stolen 

property. The charges arose from a robbery-shooting, whereby Williams approached a 

broken down vehicle to rob passengers who were fixing a flat tire and shot one of the 

victims. The receiving stolen property charge derived from the unrelated theft of a motor 

vehicle. 

{¶3} In exchange for the dismissal of the remaining charges, Williams agreed to 

plead guilty to one count of aggravated robbery and one count of felonious assault, both 

with three-year firearm specifications, and receiving stolen property. In addition to six 

years on the firearm specifications, the court sentenced Williams to ten years on the 

aggravated robbery, seven years on the felonious assault, and 17 months on the receiving 

stolen property charge. The court ordered Williams to serve the prison sentence on the 
felonious assault consecutive to the sentence on the aggravated robbery, for a total 

23-year sentence. 

{¶4} In the first assignment of error, Williams contends that the aggregate sentence 

violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. To 

support his argument, Williams states that “all parties agreed that [a] 10 year sentence 

was just”; therefore, it was cruel and unusual to impose a sentence more than twice as 

long. 

{¶5} Williams faced a minimum 9 year to a maximum 26.5-year prison term. 

The state and Williams never entered into an agreed-upon sentence. Williams’s 

reference to the 10-year sentence comes from the victims’ statements to the trial court. 

One victim acknowledged that if Williams got “something over the minimum, which 

would be 10 years, that [he would be satisfied],” and another victim stated “I think he 

needs to spend at least ten years, which is a year over the minimum,” in prison. These 

statements do not reflect any agreed-upon sentence, rather they only show that the victims 

asked the court to order at least more than the minimum sentence required. 

{¶6} Moreover, as the Ohio Supreme Court has determined, a sentence does not 

violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment if the 

trial court sentences the defendant on each charge within the applicable statutory range 

for the degree of felony charged. See State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289, 

2008-Ohio-2338, 888 N.E.2d 1073, ¶ 21 (stating, “‘[a]s a general rule, a sentence that 

falls within the terms of a valid statute cannot amount to a cruel and unusual 
punishment,’” quoting McDougal v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 68, 69, 203 N.E.2d 334 

(1964)). Here, the court sentenced Williams within the applicable statutory range on 

each felony charged; therefore, we overrule the assigned error. 

{¶7} In his second assignment of error, Williams maintains that the trial court 

erred by imposing consecutive sentences. Williams does not argue that the trial court 

failed to make the necessary findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for imposing consecutive 

sentences, rather he argues that the record fails to support the findings. 

{¶8} To impose consecutive sentences, a court must make certain findings 

pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) on the record at sentencing and then incorporate those 

findings in the journal entry. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 

N.E.3d 659, syllabus. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires the court to find that (1) consecutive 

sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender, 

(2) consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s 

conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and (3) at least one of the three 

findings set forth in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) applies. These are: 

(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the 

offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed 

pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or 

was under postrelease 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. An appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a 

sentence on appeal if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does 

not support the sentencing court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings. 
An appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify an order of consecutive 

sentences if it finds that the record clearly and convincingly does not support findings 

made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). 

{¶9} The court found that consecutive sentences were necessary to punish the 

offender, made the requisite proportionality findings, and also found that consecutive 

sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender. 

Williams asserts that the record does not support the findings because he took 

responsibility by pleading to the charges, thus sparing the victims a long drawn-out trial, 

and apologized to the victims during his allocution at sentencing. He also argues that 

“any other reasons for consecutive sentences provided by the trial court during sentencing 

are covered in the charges themselves and do not overcome the presumption of 

concurrent sentences.” We do not agree. Williams used a gun to attack three victims 

who were stranded on the side of the road. He robbed the victims and shot one of them 

in the stomach. The fact that the gunshot victim survived the assault does not limit the 

seriousness of Williams’s conduct and the threat he poses to the public. Therefore, we 

cannot find that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the order of 

consecutive sentences. 

{¶10} Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of said appellant 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. 

______________________________________________ 

MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and 

TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR