State v. Heidrick
2012 Ohio 1739
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Heidrick, age 31, was indicted on four counts in 2011, including importuning and possessing tools; he pled guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and corrupting another with drugs, and other charges were nolled.
- The trial court sentenced him on April 27, 2011 to five years in prison with five years postrelease control for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and one year of community control for corrupting another with drugs; community control was to commence upon release from prison.
- Defendant argued the trial court erred in ordering the community control sanctions to run consecutively to the prison term, effectively limiting supervision by the Adult Parole Authority.
- The State argued the court had discretion to impose a blended sentence (prison plus community control) and could order the community control to begin after incarceration.
- The issue on appeal was whether a consecutive blended sentence was proper under R.C. 2929.13(A) and related cases; the court reviewed under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) for clear and convincing error.
- The court affirmed, holding the trial court acted within its discretion to impose a community-control sentence consecutively to a prison term and that nothing in R.C. 2967.29 precludes a blended sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the blended sentence running consecutively was proper | Heidrick argued the court had no authority to run community control after prison | State argued blended sentence permitted and consecutive start after release | Yes; sentence affirmed; court found authority to impose a consecutive blended sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ramsey, 2004-Ohio-5677 (6th Dist. WD-04-004 (Ohio)) (blended sentence possible when consecutive; discretion under R.C. 2929.13(A))
- State v. Aitkens, 2002-Ohio-1080 (8th Dist. Nos. 79851 and 79929 (Ohio)) (discretion to impose prison terms and community control sanctions together)
- State v. Kinder, 2004-Ohio-4340 (5th Dist. No. 03CAA12075 (Ohio)) (blended sentence authorized; sanctions may be mixed)
- State v. Meredith, 2002-Ohio-4508 (4th Dist. No. 02CA5 (Ohio)) (guidance on blended sentence authority)
- State v. Marks, 2009-Ohio-6306 (8th Dist. No. 92548 (Ohio)) (example of discretion to blend sanctions)