State v. Snoeberger
2013 Ohio 1375
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Snoeberger pled no contest to burglary, a second-degree felony, on August 5, 2010, and was eligible for community control.
- At plea, she acknowledged that violating supervision could lead to prison up to the maximum for the offense (eight years).
- The signed plea form stated she could be required to serve up to 8 years for violations of community control.
- In September 2010, Snoeberger was sentenced to 5 years of community control; the sentencing hearing and entry referenced an eight-year prison possibility but not a specific term.
- January 2011, the court modified sanctions to include MonDay, no-breaks status, and continued supervision, without stating a specific prison term for future violations.
- July 2011, Snoeberger violated conditions, the court revoked community control and sentenced her to two years in prison; appeal followed challenging lack of specific term notification on prior hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly notified the term for a potential prison sentence for future violations. | Snoeberger asserts lack of specific-term notice at initial sentencing violated R.C. 2929.19(B)(5). | State contends notice was effectively communicated through prior discussions and admonitions of potential penalties. | Snoeberger's assignment sustained; sentence reversed and post-release control terminated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (2004) (requires specific term notification under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) for community-control violations)
- State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 (2004) (original sentencing must provide specific term; guidance on subsequent violations and notification)