State v. Brooks
2017 Ohio 5825
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Lavon O. Brooks pled guilty to an amended count of aggravated possession of drugs (third-degree felony); three other charges were dismissed. The parties stipulated to a 30‑month prison sentence with "Risk Reduction Programming." The trial court imposed the agreed 30‑month term.
- The sentencing entry contained crossed‑out language on IPP and transitional control: "IPP is approved/not approved, sentence given is appropriate" (with "is approved" crossed out) and "Transfer to Transitional control is approved/not approved" (with "is approved" crossed out).
- Brooks requested placement in an Intensive Program Prison (IPP) at sentencing; the plea agreement and written Plea Agreement Report did not expressly mention IPP.
- Ohio law (R.C. 2929.14(I) and 2929.19(D)) requires that if a court recommends or disapproves placement in IPP it must make a finding that gives its reasons for that recommendation or disapproval.
- The State conceded Brooks was statutorily eligible for IPP and agreed the trial court’s entry lacked adequate factual findings explaining disapproval; the Second District previously reversed similar deficient disapprovals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by disapproving IPP without providing factual findings as required by R.C. 2929.19(D) | State: No substantive dispute; acknowledges inadequate findings but argues IPP was not part of plea | Brooks: Trial court disapproved IPP without factual basis; plea included risk reduction which he understood to include IPP | Court: Reversed the disapproval of IPP for lack of required factual findings and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether IPP was part of the parties’ plea agreement (i.e., whether the plea included an IPP recommendation) | State: IPP was not a term of the plea agreement | Brooks: Argues risk reduction agreed to by parties includes IPP | Court: Record unclear whether IPP was included in plea; court declined to find error in failing to recommend IPP but remanded to determine whether plea included IPP or a recommendation for IPP |
| Whether the trial court erred by disapproving transfer to transitional control in the entry | State: Trial court erred by prematurely disapproving transitional control without findings | Brooks: (not raised as assignment) — implicit objection to disapproval | Court: Reversed disapproval of transitional control and remanded for amendment consistent with precedent |
| Scope of remedy on remand | State: Remand limited to IPP/transitional control findings and entry correction | Brooks: Seeks factual findings and appropriate entry / recommendation consistent with plea if applicable | Court: Affirmed sentence generally; reversed only as to IPP and transitional control and remanded for further proceedings on those issues |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Howard, 944 N.E.2d 258 (Ohio App. 2010) (describing IPP programs and statutory framework)