2012 Ohio 3503
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Two Ohio appellate cases address Bernard Shufford’s convictions for Non-Support of a Dependent (R.C. 2919.21(B)) in Montgomery County.
- Shufford pled guilty in each case to one count; the other count in each case was dismissed.
- Judgments imposed community control sanctions for up to five years, including a condition to pay court-ordered child support through SETS.
- One case included restitution of $10,376.13 to Ohio Child Support Payment Central; the other did not specify restitution.
- Shufford appeals consolidated, challenging the validity of the child-support payments as sanctions, delegation to an administrative agency, and the creation of a criminal penalty.
- The court affirms, holding the sanctions proper, no improper delegation, and no new criminal penalty created.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are child-support payments proper sanctions of community control? | Shufford argues monetary child-support payments exceed permissible financial sanctions under R.C. 2929.18. | Shufford contends the obligation to pay future child support is beyond restitution and improper as a condition. | Yes, they are proper community-control sanctions. |
| Did the court delegate judicial authority to an administrative agency? | Shufford asserts restitution scheduling to Ohio Child Support Payment Central delegated authority. | Shufford asserts the agency controls violate the court’s authority. | No improper delegation; court retains authority to enforce orders and hear disputes. |
| Does requiring payment create a criminal penalty for nonpayment? | Shufford claims a criminal penalty is created for nonpayment of future child support. | State argues penalties arise from original convictions, not from new punishment for noncompliance. | No (new) criminal penalty; consequences are continuations of the original convictions if sanctions are violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hubbell, 2004-Ohio-398 (2d Dist. Darke No. 1617) (distinguishes restitution vs. community-control conditions; supports sanctions as related to rehabilitation)
- State v. Craft, 2002-Ohio-5127 (Greene App. No.2001-CA-128) (recognizes no meaningful distinction between probation and community-control conditions)
- State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 550 N.E.2d 469 (1990) (criteria for evaluating whether conditions relate to rehabilitation and future criminality)
- State v. Lizanich, 93 Ohio App.3d 706, 639 N.E.2d 855 (10th Dist. 1994) (treatment of child-support payments as conditions vs. restitution)
- State v. Black, 2011-Ohio-1273 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24005) (continuing-consequence principle for sanctions violation tied to original conviction)