State v. Schreiber
2019 Ohio 2963
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Joshua T. Schreiber pleaded guilty (Sept. 2016) to burglary (felony 3) and two counts of menacing by stalking (felonies 4) and was sentenced to an aggregate 4-year prison term.
- In Aug. 2017 the trial court granted judicial release and placed Schreiber on community control; he was warned that violation could result in imposition of the remainder of his four-year term and ordered to serve six months at a CCC and pay restitution.
- Schreiber violated community control in Oct. 2017 (contacts with the victim; unsuccessful CCC termination) and was continued on community control and ordered into a CBCF/MonDay program.
- Schreiber was unsuccessfully discharged from the MonDay program for multiple rule violations (including showering at same time as the victim and other infractions); the clinician introduced surveillance stills corroborating timing.
- At a Feb. 28, 2018 revocation hearing the court found Schreiber violated community control, revoked it, reimposed the original aggregate 4-year sentence, and awarded 574 days’ jail-time credit.
- On appeal Schreiber raised four assignments of error (sufficiency/hearsay, notice of potential prison term, jail-time credit calculation, and whether separate commitment on stalking counts was improper); the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part to correct jail credit to 576 days, and remanded for that limited purpose.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Schreiber's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| (A) Was there sufficient evidence (or only hearsay) to revoke community control? | Testimony from probation officer and MonDay clinician plus surveillance stills provided substantial evidence of violations. | Clinician lacked independent knowledge and relied on hearsay so revocation was unsupported. | Court: Community-control hearings are not bound by evidentiary rules; clinician testimony plus photographs furnished substantial evidence. Revocation affirmed. |
| (B) Was Schreiber entitled to renewed notice of the specific prison term before reimposition? | Trial court had previously (at judicial release) notified Schreiber of the potential four-year prison term; that notice sufficed. | Court failed to notify at the most recent continuation/violation hearing, so imposing the four-year term was improper under Brooks/Fraley. | Court: Prior notice at judicial-release sentencing was legally sufficient; no requirement to re-notify at every subsequent hearing given the record/transcript presumption. Affirmed. |
| (C) Were the menacing-by-stalking terms improperly imposed (double-counting / already served)? | Sentences are aggregate when imposed consecutively; confinement credit applies to the aggregate term, so commitment on stalking counts was proper. | Fifteen- or eighteen-month calculation argument: credit already covered those terms so no further commitment should run. | Court: Trial court imposed a 3-year burglary term consecutive to concurrent 12-month stalking terms for a 4-year aggregate; this was lawful and supported by statute; affirmed. |
| (D) Did the trial court err in awarding only 574 days of jail-time credit? | Trial court awarded 574 days but DRC/trial court determination governs and can be corrected on appeal. | Schreiber computed 576 days of confinement credit and sought adjustment. | Court: Record shows confinement from Aug. 1, 2016 to Feb. 28, 2018 (576 days). Trial court erred; remanded to correct credit to 576 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must notify offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for a community-control violation)
- State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 (Ohio 2004) (timing of R.C. 2929.19 notice for multiple community-control violations)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 (Ohio 2001) (time in community-based correctional facility counts as confinement for jail-time credit)