2021 Ohio 1368
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- David A. Scott pled guilty in 2019 to Attempted Corrupting Another with Drugs (3rd‑degree) and Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs (4th‑degree) and was sentenced to two years of intensive community control with written notice that violations could result in consecutive prison terms of 36 and 18 months (total 54 months).
- Probation alleged multiple drug use violations between October 2019 and February 2020; Scott admitted the violations and waived a final revocation hearing.
- On March 11, 2020 the trial court revoked community control and imposed consecutive prison terms of 36 months (Count 1) and 18 months (Count 2), imposed three years post‑release control, and awarded 25 days jail credit.
- Scott appealed; appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders after independent review produced no arguable issues; the State responded and Scott filed no pro se brief.
- The Eleventh District conducted an Anders review, affirmed the revocation and sentence as lawful, but remanded for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry to incorporate a specific statutory consecutive‑sentences finding that was stated at the hearing but omitted from the written entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation complied with Crim.R. 32.3 (hearing, presence, notice, counsel) | State: Preliminary and final (waived) hearings held; Scott was present and represented; served with complaint | Scott: no preserved challenge (admitted violations and waived final hearing) | Court: Revocation procedures satisfied; no error |
| Whether sentencing hearing complied with R.C. 2929.19 and Crim.R. 32 (allocution, statutorily required notices) | State: Court afforded allocution, notified of post‑release control, provided written notice and jail credit | Scott: no preserved challenge | Court: Sentencing hearing complied with statutory and rule requirements |
| Whether imposed prison terms exceeded the notice or statutory range | State: Terms matched the pre‑violation notice and statutory ranges | Scott: implicitly challenged as part of appeal but no meritorious claim | Court: Prison terms lawful and within the notified/statutory limits |
| Whether consecutive sentences were properly supported and entered | State: Trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing (necessity, non‑disproportionate, and history of criminal conduct) | Scott: argued written entry omitted the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) finding (history of criminal conduct) so entry incomplete | Court: Oral findings were made and sufficient; omission in written entry does not render sentence contrary to law and can be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry—case remanded for that correction |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure when counsel seeks to withdraw after finding appeal frivolous)
- State v. Jackson, 81 N.E.3d 1237 (Ohio 2016) (revocation of community control requires compliance with sentencing statutes)
- State v. Mayle, 101 N.E.3d 490 (Ohio 2017) (Crim.R. 32.3 mandates hearing, presence, and notice of grounds for revocation)
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make consecutive‑sentence findings at hearing and incorporate them into the record; reasons not required)
- State v. Beasley, 108 N.E.3d 1028 (Ohio 2018) (three distinct findings required for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4))