State v. Anderson
143 Ohio St. 3d 173
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Defendant David Anderson was convicted by a jury of first-degree rape and kidnapping; the trial court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms and also issued a no-contact order with the victim.
- Anderson appealed the no-contact order, arguing the trial court lacked authority to impose it when a prison term was imposed.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals upheld the no-contact order, reasoning no statute expressly prohibits such an order and that it furthers sentencing purposes.
- The Eighth District had held the opposite in prior decisions (e.g., Holly, Rogers): once a prison term is imposed, imposing a no-contact order is not authorized and post-release supervision is for the Parole Board.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review to resolve the district split and considered (1) the source of sentencing authority, (2) whether a no-contact order is a community-control sanction, and (3) whether a community-control sanction can be imposed together with a prison term for the same felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may impose a no-contact order after sentencing a defendant to prison for the same felony | State: trial court may impose no-contact as part of sentence; statutes don't expressly prohibit it and it serves sentencing purposes | Anderson: a no-contact order is a community-control sanction and cannot be imposed when a prison term for the same offense is imposed | No — a court cannot impose a no-contact order (a community-control sanction) together with a prison term for the same felony absent an express exception |
| Whether no-contact orders constitute community-control sanctions | State: characterized as a permissible sentencing condition | Anderson: argued it is a community-control sanction (limit judicial authority when prison imposed) | Court: no-contact orders are community-control sanctions |
| Source and limits of sentencing authority | State: silence in statutes allows flexibility to impose such orders | Anderson: judges lack inherent sentencing power and may only impose sanctions authorized by statute | Court: sentencing is statutory; judges may impose only sanctions authorized by Revised Code |
| Whether prison and community control are alternative sanctions for felonies | State: court retained discretion to add conditions like no-contact | Anderson: post-SB2 framework makes prison and community control alternative and mutually exclusive | Court: SB2 and current statutes show prison and community control are alternative punishments; cannot combine for same offense |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (Ohio 2012) (definition and nature of a sentence)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (judges have no inherent power to create sentences)
- State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 1984) (only sentences provided by statute may be imposed)
- Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504 (Ohio 2000) (discussion of SB 2 and sentencing reform)
- State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174 (Ohio 2008) (context on SB 2 altering definitions and sentencing)
- State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 2004) (community control replaced probation after SB 2)
Bottom line
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and vacated the no-contact order: because no-contact orders are community-control sanctions and felony statutes treat imprisonment and community control as mutually exclusive alternatives, a trial court may not impose a no-contact order for the same felony offense when it sentences the defendant to prison.