State v. Nash
2012 Ohio 3246
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Nash pleaded guilty to one count of drug possession, a fifth-degree felony.
- Trial court sentenced Nash to three days in jail with credit for three days served and a $100 fine.
- The state appealed; argument centered on whether the sentence complied with law and required probation supervision.
- This court sua sponte granted en banc review due to conflict with prior decisions on supervision in community control cases.
- The court overruled Eppinger and held that supervision is required only when a condition or term must be overseen; a fine may not require probation supervision.
- The court noted prior directives (PSIR before sentencing) and concluded Nash’s sentence was not contrary to law and costs were waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RC 2929.15(A)(2) require probation supervision in all community control cases? | State urged follow Eppinger; supervision is required. | Nash argued supervision is only needed when there is a superviseable condition. | Supervision required only when there is a condition or term to supervise. |
| Is Nash's sentence contrary to law under Kalish analysis? | State maintained the sentence violated statutory rules. | Nash argued no violation; court had discretion. | Sentence was not contrary to law under Kalish first prong. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing? | State contends improper sentencing. | Nash contends proper discretion was exercised. | No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory discretion. |
| Were costs and notice related to paying the fine properly addressed? | Costs may have been imposed without proper notice. | Fine becomes a judgment; notice not required for failure to pay. | Costs waived; fine is a judgment; no separate notice required for failure to pay. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two-prong Kalish test for felony sentences)
- State v. Eppinger, 8th Dist. No. 92441, 2009-Ohio-5233 (2009) (supervision required in community control cases)
- State v. Pickett, No. 91343, 2009-Ohio-2127 (2009) (presentence investigation directive guidance)
- State v. Disanza, No. 92375, 2009-Ohio-5364 (2009) (presentence directives guidance)
- State v. Peck, No. 92374, 2009-Ohio-5845 (2009) (presentence directives guidance)