2013 Ohio 307
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Barton pleaded guilty to one count of permitting drug abuse, a fifth‑degree felony, as part of a plea deal.
- The Washington County Court of Common Pleas sentenced Barton on June 5, 2012 to five years of community control, not a prison term.
- During sentencing, the court informed Barton that violating community control could lead to imprisonment and that, if imprisoned, postrelease control could follow.
- The court warned that postrelease control could be enforced by the Parole Authority without a court order and could be triggered for violations not constituting crimes.
- Barton argues that the court misinformed her about postrelease control consequences and seeks a new sentencing hearing on that basis.
- The appellate court reviews the issue de novo and concludes Barton was not prejudiced by any misstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misstatements about postrelease control require reversal. | Barton argues prejudice from misinforming. | State contends no prejudice since further proceedings would occur if necessary. | No reversible error; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lofton, 2012-Ohio-2274 (4th Dist. No. 11CA16) (de novo review of sentencing statutes)
- State v. Fraley, 2004-Ohio-7110 (Supreme Court) (second sentencing hearing after community control violation)
- State v. Jenkins, 2011-Ohio-6924 (4th Dist.) (statutory interpretation of postrelease control)
- State v. Munson, 2010-Ohio-1982 (8th Dist.) (notification requirements for postrelease control)
- State v. Rembert, 2005-Ohio-4718 (5th Dist.) (prejudice requirement for reversible error)