2020 Ohio 1273
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Jumaine Jones was indicted on criminal nonsupport charges in two cases (614411: two counts; 614412: four counts). Parties amended counts to misdemeanors as part of a plea deal.
- On August 14, 2018 the court imposed jail terms (six months per count), suspended execution, and placed Jones on five years of community control; aggregate entries showed 12 months (614411) and 24 months (614412) suspended.
- Jones violated community control, failed to appear for a violation hearing, was arrested in Las Vegas and extradited to Cuyahoga County; he admitted the violations at the April 9, 2019 hearing.
- The trial court terminated community control and ordered execution of the previously suspended jail terms: aggregate 12 months in 614411 (consecutive on two counts) and aggregate 24 months in 614412 (consecutive on four counts), but later attempted in the journal entry to reduce the aggregate in 614412 citing the 18‑month statutory cap.
- The court granted 104 days of credit and ordered Jones to pay $2,532.30 in extradition costs; Jones appealed raising three assignments of error (consecutive sentences authority, abuse of discretion as to severity, and imposition of extradition costs).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Jones' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose consecutive misdemeanor jail terms on reimposition after revocation | Court retained sentencing jurisdiction; R.C. 2929.41(B)(1) permits consecutive misdemeanor jail terms without felony consecutive‑sentence findings | R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were required when originally sentencing, so court lacked authority to reimpose consecutive terms on revocation | Court: Trial court had authority and originally “specified” consecutive terms, but 614412 sentence exceeded the 18‑month statutory cap; consecutive sentences in 614412 vacated and remanded for resentencing (614411 challenges moot because served) |
| Abuse of discretion / reasonableness of imposing maximum consecutive terms after violation | Reimposition and length were within sentencing discretion for misdemeanors and community‑control revocation | Consecutive maximums were excessive, counterproductive to child‑support recovery, and not necessary for public protection | Deemed moot as to 614411 (sentence served); as to 614412 resolution of first issue rendered the second moot and resentencing is required |
| Imposition of $2,532.30 in extradition costs on a convicted misdemeanant who was found indigent | Costs of prosecution are mandatory under R.C. 2947.23; trial court may include necessary prosecution expenses | No statutory authority to include extradition expenses as costs for misdemeanants; R.C. 2949.14( ) authorizes taxing extradition only for non‑indigent felons | Court vacated the extradition‑costs orders in both cases: no specific statutory authorization to tax extradition costs as prosecution costs for an indigent misdemeanant |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Middleburg Heights v. Quinones, 120 Ohio St.3d 534 (definition and scope of court costs)
- State ex rel. Franklin Cty. Commrs. v. Guilbert, 77 Ohio St. 333 (historical definition of costs)
- State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106 (costs of prosecution are mandatory absent waiver)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (limits on nunc pro tunc relief)
- State v. Perz, 173 Ohio App.3d 99 (statutory authorization required to tax particular expenses as costs)