2020 Ohio 6706
Ohio2020Background
- In June 2012 Rue was sentenced to the maximum five years of community control for a second-degree felony; the journal entry set the term to expire on June 5, 2017.
- Rue stopped reporting to his probation officer on November 3, 2016; a warrant issued March 9, 2017; he was brought before the court April 20, 2017, and the court continued community control and ordered restitution payments.
- Rue again failed to report on June 20, 2017; a warrant issued December 18, 2017; he was arrested July 17, 2018, and brought before the court August 23, 2018.
- On September 12, 2018 the trial court revoked Rue’s community control and imposed a two-year prison term; the trial court did not make any express finding that tolling had occurred under R.C. 2929.15(A)(1).
- The Eleventh District reversed, holding the trial court lacked authority because revocation proceedings were not initiated before the community-control term expired; it certified conflict with State v. Meyer. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rue) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absconding automatically tolls a felony community-control term so revocation may be pursued after the original expiration | Absconding (e.g., willful failure to report) automatically tolls the community-control term; trial court may revoke after original term based on tolling | Tolling requires court action/declination and revocation proceedings (or at least notice) must be initiated before the original term expires | Tolling is not self-executing; absconding has no legal effect until the court, through timely-initiated proceedings, determines tolling. Revocation proceedings must be commenced before expiration to vest the court with authority. |
| Whether a court may extend community control beyond the five-year statutory maximum for unpaid restitution | Trial court may treat restitution nonpayment as extending supervision or otherwise continue control | Five-year cap in R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) bars extending community control beyond five years | A court cannot extend community control beyond the five-year statutory maximum; the trial court’s claimed restitution-based extension was erroneous. |
| Whether "absconds" in tolling statute includes willful failure to report | "Absconds" includes willful failure to report; tolling language applies to such conduct | Agrees that "absconds" can encompass willful failure to report, but stresses need for court declaration and timely proceedings | The court accepts that absconding may include willful failure to report, but reiterates that tolling must be given legal effect by the court. |
| Whether the State’s failure to raise tolling in the trial court or to seek a judicial tolling finding precludes later reliance on tolling | Tolling may be argued on appeal as an alternative basis if record supports it | Failure to seek tolling or to get a court finding in trial court forfeits the claim | Because the State and trial court did not obtain or record a tolling determination at the time, the State’s 2018 revocation proceedings were untimely; the tolling claim is forfeited for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Hemsley v. Unruh, 128 Ohio St.3d 307 (Ohio 2011) (revocation proceedings after expiration are authorized if notice filed and proceedings commenced before expiration)
- State ex rel. Untied v. Ellwood, 131 Ohio St.3d 37 (Ohio 2011) (same principle: charge filed before expiration preserves authority to complete proceedings)
- State v. Yates, 58 Ohio St.3d 78 (Ohio 1991) (trial court lacked authority where revocation proceedings were not initiated before probation term expired)
- In re Townsend, 51 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1990) ("absconds" can include willful failure to report to a probation officer)
- State v. Bess, 126 Ohio St.3d 350 (Ohio 2010) (judicial determination required to give tolling legal effect under criminal limitations contexts)
- State v. Meyer, 18 N.E.3d 805 (9th Dist. 2014) (conflicting appellate decision disapproved by the Supreme Court)