State v. Thompson
2016 Ohio 8401
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Patrick A. Thompson was indicted in Crawford C.P. No. 13-CR-0233 on drug possession (fourth-degree) and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity (second-degree); he pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and received an aggregate prison term of 4 years, 11 months.
- Thompson obtained judicial release in September 2015; the remainder of his sentence was suspended and he was placed on conditions of supervision.
- The State alleged violations of the judicial-release conditions; after a probable-cause determination, the trial court held a revocation hearing and on December 9, 2015 reimposed the remainder of Thompson’s original sentence.
- Thompson filed a delayed appeal of the revocation; while that appeal was pending the trial court held a June 14, 2016 hearing at the State’s request and issued a June 20, 2016 entry further advising Thompson of postrelease-control.
- Thompson raised three assignments of error: (1) the court should have imposed R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) drug-test sanctions instead of prison, (2) the reimposition of his original sentence was unsupported by clear and convincing evidence and/or plain error, and (3) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify postrelease-control notice while his appeal was pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation and reimposition of the suspended portion of sentence was an abuse of discretion | Court may reimpose the original sentence under R.C. 2929.20(K) when judicial-release conditions are violated | Reimposition was unsupported by clear and convincing evidence and/or plain error; court should have reconsidered sentencing factors | No abuse of discretion; reimposition permitted and limited to original sentence with credit for time served |
| Whether R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) drug-test sanction (no imprisonment absent findings) limited the court's remedy on judicial-release violation | Not applicable—R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) governs community-control violations, not revocation of judicial release under R.C. 2929.20 | Prison should not have been imposed because violation involved personal drug abuse and E(2) prohibits imprisonment absent findings | R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) does not apply to R.C. 2929.20 revocations; trial court properly reimposed original sentence |
| Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction to correct/clarify postrelease-control notice while appeal pending | The June 2016 hearing/entry was beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction once appeal was filed | Trial court retained authority to correct postrelease-control notice or to treat State’s motion as motion to correct; original sentence lacked defect | Court presumed proper notification at sentencing (no transcript); original journal entry adequately stated postrelease-control; subsequent entry was surplusage and had no legal effect |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (trial courts must provide statutorily compliant postrelease-control notification)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (postrelease-control defects can render sanction void)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (applying Singleton framework for postrelease-control notice)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (requirements for court notification and inclusion of postrelease-control sanctions in journal entry)
- Watkins v. Collins, 111 Ohio St.3d 425 (purpose of postrelease-control notification—put defendant on notice)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (definition of abuse of discretion)