State v. Grant, 2016 Ohio 7857

Adam Grant pleaded no contest in Sept. 2013 to two misdemeanors (marked lanes; failure to stop after an accident), received 180 days suspended and two years’ community control plus fines, restitution, and license suspension.
In Jan. 2014 the municipal court found community-control violations; after Grant was sentenced in common pleas on a felony, the municipal court again found a violation but continued him on community control.
In Aug. 2015 the municipal probation office filed another violation for nonpayment of court-ordered financial obligations; Grant pleaded no contest.
At the Oct. 2, 2015 revocation hearing, Grant’s counsel explained he had been in felony probation/treatment, had lost work, and was unable to pay; the court found a violation, terminated community control, and imposed six months’ jail (remitting court costs).
Grant’s motion to stay was denied; he appealed, arguing (1) the municipal court erred in revoking community control and imposing jail without finding willfulness for nonpayment, and (2) the municipal court lacked jurisdiction under R.C. 2951.022 because common pleas was the supervising court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether municipal court had jurisdiction to revoke community control under R.C. 2951.022	State: record does not show common pleas imposed longer possible sentence; municipal court retained jurisdiction	Grant: R.C. 2951.022 assigns supervision to the court of conviction that imposed the longest possible incarceration (common pleas), so municipal court lacked jurisdiction	Court: Grant failed to show the record (common-pleas sentencing entry) proving common pleas imposed the longer possible term; cannot find lack of jurisdiction; assignment overruled
Whether revocation and six-month jail for nonpayment was proper without finding willfulness	State: court acted within revocation authority; record insufficient to overturn
Grant: court must determine and state on record that nonpayment was willful (not due to indigence) before incarcerating	Court: Although law requires a willfulness inquiry (Bearden/Dockery), the issue is moot because Grant already served the jail term and appellate court cannot provide meaningful relief; assignment dismissed as moot

Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2004) (distinguishes subject-matter jurisdiction from jurisdiction over a particular case and explains void vs. voidable judgments)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (defines a voidable sentence)
State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must notify offender of specific prison term that may be imposed when sentencing to community control)
Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (court must inquire into reasons for nonpayment before incarcerating for failure to pay)
State v. Dockery, 187 Ohio App.3d 798 (Ohio Ct. App.) (applying willfulness/indigence standard to revocation for nonpayment)