State v. Howard
2017 Ohio 8747
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John M. Howard was convicted in 2014 of importuning (felony 5) and attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (felony 4) and the trial court imposed consecutive prison terms (11 and 17 months) but stayed execution and placed him on community control with conditions.
- After about 2½ years the probation officer sought revocation; a different judge held a revocation hearing, continued community control, added conditions (mental-health treatment), and extended supervision for one year.
- Howard violated community control again; the second judge then revoked community control and enforced the original 28‑month prison sentence the court had imposed (but previously stayed).
- Howard appealed, raising two issues: (1) the revocation judge failed to notify him at the revocation hearing of the specific prison term he faced for future violations; (2) the consecutive sentences lacked the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
- The trial court did not re-sentence Howard anew at the second revocation; it enforced the original sentence imposed at the 2014 sentencing hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Howard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court must repeat at each revocation hearing the specific-prison-term notice required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) | Original proper notice at sentencing was sufficient; no need to re-notify at each revocation | Revocation judge should have specifically notified Howard at that revocation hearing of the exact prison term he faced for subsequent violations | Court held prior proper notification at the original sentencing (or any subsequent hearing where notice was given) is legally sufficient; no need to repeat notice at every revocation hearing |
| Whether consecutive sentences enforced on revocation required fresh R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings by the later judge | Enforcing an earlier-imposed consecutive sentence does not require the later judge to re-make the statutory consecutive-sentence findings | The later enforcement of consecutive terms without new findings violated R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Court held the later judge merely enforced the original sentence; any challenge to the lack of 2929.14(C)(4) findings should have been made on direct appeal from the original sentencing, so claim is not a proper basis to vacate the enforcement on revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (2004) (trial court must notify offender at sentencing of specific prison term that may be imposed for violation of community control)
- State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 (2004) (reiterates requirement that an offender must be notified of specific prison term as prerequisite to imposing prison for a subsequent violation; notice at a later violation hearing can satisfy requirement)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (explains appellate standard for reviewing consecutive-sentence findings and directs appropriate application of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))