[Cite as State v. Wellington, 2014-Ohio-1179.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 

V. 

DANIEL WELLINGTON, 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 13 MA 90 

OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Court of Common 

Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio 

Case No. 11CR866 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee Paul Gains 

Prosecutor 

Ralph Rivera 

Assistant Prosecutor 

21 W. Boardman St., 6th Floor 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

For Defendant-Appellant Attorney John A. Ams 

134 Westchester Drive 

Youngstown, Ohio 44515 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

Hon. Mar DeGenaro 

 

 
-2-

 Dated: March 17, 2014 
[Cite as State v. Wellington, 2014-Ohio-1179.]

DONOFRIO, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Daniel Wellington, appeals from a Mahoning 

County Common Pleas Court judgment sentencing him to 11 years in prison 

following his guilty plea to one count of involuntary manslaughter. 

{¶2} On August 11, 2011, a Mahoning County Grand Jury indicted appellant 

on one count of murder alleging he caused the death of Doris Wellington on August 

5, 2011. 

{¶3} Appellant eventually pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter, a firstdegree felony in violation of R.C. 2903.04(A)(C). 

{¶4} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on April 13, 2013. It 

sentenced appellant to eleven years in prison. 

{¶5} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on June 6, 2013. 

{¶6} Appellant raises a single assignment of error that states: 

 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT RETROACTIVELY 

APPLIED REVISED CODE SECTION 2929.14, AS AMENDED BY 

HOUSE BILL 86, AND SENTENCED APPELLANT TO ELEVEN 

YEARS IN PRISON. 

{¶7} Appellant argues the maximum sentence available at the time he 

committed the offense was ten years. Therefore, he argues the trial court could not 

sentence him to eleven years in prison. Appellant contends the trial court applied the 

wrong version of R.C. 2929.14 and, therefore, his sentence is contrary to law. 

{¶8} Plaintiff-appellee, the State of Ohio, has entered a confession of 

judgment in this matter. 

{¶9} Our review of felony sentences is a limited, two-fold approach, as 

outlined in the plurality opinion in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶26. First, we must examine the sentence to determine if it is 

“clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Id. (O'Conner, J., plurality opinion). In 

examining “all applicable rules and statutes,” the sentencing court must consider R.C. 

2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14 (O'Conner, J., plurality opinion). If the 
-2-

sentence is clearly and convincingly not contrary to law, the court's discretion in 

selecting a sentence within the permissible statutory range is subject to review for 

abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶17 (O'Conner, J., plurality opinion). Thus, we apply an 

abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the sentence satisfies R.C. 

2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Id. at ¶17 (O'Connor, J., plurality opinion). 

{¶10} The offense in this case occurred on August 5, 2011. At that time, R.C. 

2929.14(A)(1), provided that for a first-degree felony, the possible prison sentences 

were three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, or ten years. 

{¶11} On September 30, 2011, H.B. 86 became effective. Through H.B. 86, 

the Legislature amended R.C. 2929.14 and changed the possible prison sentences 

for felonies. The current version of R.C. 2929.14(A)(1) extended the maximum 

possible prison time for a first-degree felony from ten years to eleven years. 

{¶12} H.B. 86 provides, in part, at Section 4: 

The amendments to sections * * * and division (A) of section 

2929.14 of the Revised Code that are made in this act apply to a 

person who commits an offense specified or penalized under those 

sections on or after the effective date of this section[.] 

{¶13} Thus, H.B. 86 does not apply retroactively. See also, R.C. 1.58(A)(3). 

{¶14} Because the trial court sentenced appellant to eleven years in prison 

when the maximum sentence permitted under the law at the time was ten years, 

appellant’s sentence is contrary to law. 

{¶15} Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error has merit. 

{¶16} For the reasons stated above, appellant’s sentence is hereby reversed. 
-3-

{¶17} The matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing utilizing the 

version of R.C. 2929.14(A)(1) that was in effect on the date appellant committed the 

offense. 

Waite, J., concurs. 

DeGenaro, P.J. concurs.