State v. Hamm
65 N.E.3d 143
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In Nov. 2014 Joshua Hamm was indicted with 13 codefendants; he pleaded guilty to amended Count 1 (attempted criminal gang activity), Count 53 (intimidation), and Count 60 (attempted felonious assault). All were third-degree felonies; Counts 53 and 60 included criminal-gang specifications under R.C. 2941.142(A).
- In exchange for the plea, other charges were nolled.
- The trial court sentenced Hamm to two years’ incarceration on the criminal-gang specifications for Counts 53 and 60 (concurrent), and then imposed 60 months of community-control sanctions on Counts 1, 53, and 60 to be served after the prison term.
- The State appealed, arguing the sentence was an improper “split sentence” because the court imposed prison on the specifications but community control on the underlying predicate felonies.
- The question presented was whether a trial court may impose community control on an underlying felony while imposing a mandatory prison term on an accompanying criminal-gang specification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing community control on the underlying felony while imposing prison on the criminal-gang specification violates the prohibition on "split sentences" | The term "additional" in R.C. 2929.14(G) requires a prison sentence on the underlying offense as well as the specification, so the court may not give community control on the felony while sending the defendant to prison on the specification | A specification is a sentencing enhancement, not part of the underlying offense; "additional" prison is added to whatever sentence is imposed on the predicate offense, so the court may impose community control on the felony and prison on the specification | Court held the sentence was not contrary to law: a specification is a sentencing enhancement and does not prohibit community control on the underlying offense while imposing prison on the specification |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (2015) (explains that for each count a court must impose either prison or community control)
- State v. Jacobs, 189 Ohio App.3d 283 (2010) (trial court may not impose both prison and community control for the same offense)
- State v. Vlad, 153 Ohio App.3d 74 (2003) (trial court must choose prison or community control for a given count)