State v. Howard
190 Ohio App. 3d 734
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Howard was convicted of abduction and received five years of community-control sanctions, later modified to basic supervision; he absconded and a domestic-violence charge was filed in Montgomery County.
- A revocation hearing in December 2009 resulted in revocation of community control and a one-year sentence to the Corrections Reception Center after Howard admitted violations (employment proof, absconding).
- The termination entry included language disapproving shock incarceration, IPP, and transitional control, which had not been raised at the revocation/sentencing hearing.
- Howard challenged the entry, contending the court failed to make required findings under R.C. 2929.19(D) and that transitional-control disapproval was premature.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred by not making the statutorily required findings and by including transitional control in the termination entry, warranting reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court fail to make required findings under R.C. 2929.19(D) on IPP/shock incarceration? | Howard argues the court did not address IPP/shock incarceration and did not include findings. | Howard contends no adequate findings were made; IPP/shock had to be considered. | Yes; error—findings required and absent. |
| Was disapproval of transitional control properly includable at sentencing? | Howard contends transitional control disapproval was inappropriate at termination. | State argues discretion existed; not ripe. | Premature to disapprove transitional control; improper in termination entry. |
| Does the record show substantial compliance with 2929.19(D) findings through other comments? | Record lacks explicit reasons for disapproval. | Other findings could satisfy the statute. | No; no substantial compliance. |
| Should the sentence be reversed and remanded for resentencing? | Remand to address proper findings. | Not necessary if findings were proper. | Yes; reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Heger, 2009-Ohio-2691 (5th Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (discusses non-entitlement to IPP/shock incarceration; substantial compliance allowed)
- State v. Lowery, 2007-Ohio-6734 (11th Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (no requirement to orally inform of recommendation; findings can be implied)