Cleveland v. Schornstein Holdings, L.L.C.
2016 Ohio 7479
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Schornstein Holdings, LLC owned a two-unit rental property cited for health/code violations; a July 10, 2013 notice required compliance by July 17, 2013, which the landlord did not meet.
- The city filed a criminal complaint December 6, 2013, alleging health-code violations (citing C.C.O. 211.01 and 203.03) and alleging a continuing violation from July 18 through September 2, 2013.
- On April 2, 2014, the landlord pleaded no contest; a standardized judgment entry found guilt, imposed a $2,000 fine with $1,800 suspended, and placed the landlord on community control (the form merely checked “CC warnings given” without detailing terms).
- After continued property noncompliance, the magistrate found a community-control violation (April–June 2015) and later imposed a $230,000 fine (calculated as $5,000 per count for 46 days) against the organizational defendant.
- The landlord appealed only the amount of the post-violation fine, claiming double jeopardy, confrontation and due-process (insufficient notice) violations. The court affirmed no double jeopardy and no confrontation violation but reversed on due process for inadequate notice at original sentencing and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of unsworn testimony at community-control sentencing violated confrontation/Evid.R. 603 | Court: rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing; specialist’s unsworn statements admissible | Schornstein: confrontation/Evid.R. 603 violated by unsworn testimony | Court held no violation — confrontation and Evid.R. 603 do not apply to sentencing proceedings |
| Whether imposing $230,000 after an earlier $2,000 fine violates Double Jeopardy | City: sanction for violating community-control is enforcement of sanctions, not re-prosecution of original offense | Schornstein: second, much larger fine punishes again for same conduct | Court held no double jeopardy — penalties for community-control violations are separate and authorized by statute |
| Whether trial court provided constitutionally adequate notice of consequences of violating community control at original sentencing | City: prior entry and checked box sufficed to put defendant on notice | Schornstein: original judgment entry failed to specify counts, duration, or potential enhanced fines (e.g., $5,000 per count for businesses) | Court held notice was inadequate under R.C. 2929.25(A)(3); reversed and remanded due to lack of meaningful notice of consequences |
| Whether court properly relied on penalty provision (C.C.O. 601.99) not cited in complaint to assess enhanced fines | City: magistrate/judgment cited authority for business-entity fines | Schornstein: complaint cited health-code penalty section (C.C.O. 201.99), not the business-entity enhancement | Court noted inconsistency and that enhanced business-entity penalty authority was not in the complaint record supporting the imposition of $5,000-per-day fines; inadequate notice problem compounded by this mismatch |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1950) (Sixth Amendment confrontation right does not extend to sentencing hearings)
- State v. Gunnell, 132 Ohio St.3d 442 (2012) (Double jeopardy principles discussed in Ohio context)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (Court speaks through its journal — absence of transcript puts burden on journal entry for what occurred)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (Crim.R. 32(C) requirement that journal entry state the fact of conviction)