2022 Ohio 4171
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Patrick assaulted his partner in April 2021 and was indicted on multiple felonies; he pled guilty to one count of felonious assault in December 2021 in exchange for dismissal of other charges.
- The trial court accepted the plea, ordered PSI and evaluations, and held a January 2022 sentencing hearing where the state sought the maximum (8 years) and victim and family asked for treatment.
- The court sentenced Patrick to eight years in ODRC, credited 282 days, orally ordered him to “stay away from Brittany Clay,” and directed mental-health, drug, and anger-management treatment while incarcerated.
- The written entry mirrored the sentence, included the no-contact language and a treatment recommendation, and—though not announced at the hearing—included notice of the mandatory postrelease-control term.
- On appeal Patrick challenged the no-contact order, the treatment directive, and the lack of oral notification about postrelease control; the state conceded error on the no-contact order and the failure to notify of postrelease control but defended the treatment recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing a no-contact order while also imposing a prison term is lawful | State concedes the no-contact order cannot stand with a prison term | No-contact order is impermissible because it functions as a community-control sanction | Vacated no-contact order; court may not impose community-control sanction (no-contact) and prison for same offense (vacate community-control portion) |
| Whether the court’s directive that Patrick complete treatment is an improper community-control sanction | Treatment language is a non-binding recommendation to ODRC, not a community-control sanction | Directive to “complete” treatment amounts to nonresidential community-control and is impermissible with a prison term | Treatment language upheld as a nonbinding recommendation to ODRC and not contrary to law |
| Whether failure to orally notify Patrick of postrelease control at sentencing renders that portion of the sentence invalid | State concedes failure to notify but requests correction via R.C. 2929.191 hearing | Patrick argues postrelease-control error is voidable and cannot be corrected absent a state cross-appeal | Reversed the postrelease-control portion and remanded for a notification-of-postrelease-control hearing under R.C. 2929.191 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (2015) (a court may not impose a prison term and a community-control sanction for the same offense)
- State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 (2020) (addresses voidability and challenge procedures for postrelease-control errors)
- State v. Bates, 167 Ohio St.3d 197 (2022) (sentencing court must notify defendant of postrelease control at sentencing and in the entry)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (postrelease-control notice and consequences must be communicated at sentencing)
- State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (2017) (same principle regarding required postrelease-control notification)
- Columbus v. Messer, 7 Ohio App.3d 266 (10th Dist. 1982) (once defendant is transferred to penal institution, trial court lacks authority over prison confinement)