2021 Ohio 2609
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Appellant Stephen Trimble was indicted on rape of a child (<13), gross sexual imposition, and importuning; he pleaded guilty to rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)) and importuning (R.C. 2907.07(B)(1)(a)).
- The parties agreed to consecutive sentences: 10 years for rape and 11 months for importuning; the court also imposed mandatory postrelease control, Tier III registration, fines/costs, and a no‑contact order.
- Trimble appealed, arguing the trial court erred by imposing a prison term and a no‑contact order for the same offense, relying on State v. Anderson.
- The State responded that Anderson does not reflect modern realities—incarcerated defendants can contact victims electronically—and urged affirmation of the no‑contact order to protect victims.
- The appellate court reviewed the sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and noted the defendant bears the burden to show a sentence is contrary to law or unsupported by the record by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court applied Anderson, treated no‑contact orders as community‑control sanctions, held such orders cannot accompany a prison term for the same felony absent an express exception, vacated the no‑contact order, affirmed the prison terms, and remanded to correct the sentencing entry.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may impose a prison term and a no‑contact order for the same felony offense | State: Anderson fails to account for inmate electronic communications; no‑contact order is necessary to protect victims | Trimble: Anderson controls; imposing both is unlawful | Court: Follows Anderson — no‑contact order is a community‑control sanction and cannot be imposed with a prison term absent an express statutory exception; no‑contact order vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (2015) (holding generally a court may not impose both a prison term and a no‑contact order for the same felony)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defining the clear and convincing evidence standard)
- State v. Jordan, 160 Ohio St.3d 1518 (2020) (Supreme Court initially entertained a Marsy’s Law challenge related to Anderson but later vacated/declined jurisdiction)