*1 Assignmеnt of Error II “Defendant-appellant did not knowingly and voluntarily
{¶ 17} waive its consti- tutional rights with full knowledge of the maximum penalty included as required 11(C)(2)(a).” by Ohio Criminal Rule
Assignment of Error III “The trial court failed to amake finding guilt based on an explanation of the circumstances of the offense in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 2937.07.”
Assignment of Error IV “The trial court failed to advise the defendant-аppellant that it had a
right to confront against witnesses it.”
Assignment of Error V total $10,948,000.00 “The fíne of excessive, unrelated, grossly disproportionate to the offenses to which defendant-appellant pled contest, constitutes an excessive fine violation of the defendant-appellant’s rights as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 9 Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution.”
Assignment of Error VI “Thе defendant-appellant’s numerous/multiple convictions for building and housing code violations involved allied offenses of similar import, thus precluding the trial court’s imposition of multiple sentеnces.” Ohio, Appellee,
STATE of ANDRASAK, Appellant.
[Cite
State v.
Ninth County. Medina
No. 10CA0050-M. July
Decided *3 Holman, Dean County Medina Attorney, Prosecuting Hopkins, and Russell A. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Joseph F. Salzgeber, for appellant. Judge.
Moore, Appellant, Andrasak, Cheryl L. appeals from the judgment of {¶ 1} the Medina Pleas, County Common which ordered as a community condition of control that she have no contact with her husband or son. This court in affirms part and reverses in part. September 24, On the Medina County Jury Grand indicted Andra-
sak on one count of permitting drug 2925.13(B), abuse in of felony violation R.C. a of R.C. in in violation trafficking drugs and count of fifth one degree, of the 2925.03(A)(1), 2925.03(C)(1)(a), degree. of the fourth 2923.03(A)(2), felony a and counts, the and 10, 2010, guilty to both Andrasak February pleaded On {¶ 3} 22, 2010, the trial court March investigation. On presentence ordered a court have control, she was to community which during years her to five of sentenced county jail and a six- codefendants, days as well as 180 with her no contact suspension. license month driver’s assignment one of She has raised timеly appeal. a notice Andrasak filed for our review.
of error affecting the committed error plain The trial court abused its discretion five-year her sentence by imposing, pаrt of rights [Andrasak] substantial have contact that no or the conditions community probation, [she] control constitutional to her fundamental contrary her son and her husband with rights. court error, that trial In Andrasak contends her that she have plain by ordering error its committed
abused discretion control. during five-year community term of with husband and son contact agree part. We trial court tоld sentencing hearing, the March During Howard Williams and Eric no contact with have “[Y]ou’re entry on March you’re In its filed probation.”
while on “no contact codefendants.” On that Andrasak was to hаve with trial wrote 6, 2010, tunc which stated pro entry, the trial court filed nunc April *4 co-defendants, Williams, Jr., Eric to have “no contact with Howard Andrasak was Hanning and Nathaniel Andrasak.”
Husband at that she was to have When the court told Andrasak husband, object. appellate Eric she did not “An Hanning; no contact with her of the trial court’s complaining need consider an which a party not error called, call, not the trial attention at a time could have did to court’s judgment but the trial court.” State avoided corrected by such error could have been or when 1364, 112, 98, v. Williams (1977), paragraph 5 364 N.E.2d 51 Ohio St.2d O.O.3d Therefore, she these Forfeiture of syllabus. one of the forfeited issues. not, however, plain-error Andrasak’s argument constitutional does foreclose 52(B), affecting “[p]lаin Pursuant to errors or defects argument. Crim.R. to although they brought be were not the attention rights may substantial noticed “under circumstances only exceptional court.” Plain error to be noticed of the is (1978), 53 Long v. State justice.” a only miscarriage to manifest prevent 804, 178, syllabus. three of the 91, paragraph 7 372 N.E.2d Ohio St.2d O.O.3d 842 52(B)
“This apply Court will Crim.R. if only appears it on the face of the record committed, that an error was and the result of the trial clearly would have been Dent, different for alleged but error.” 20907, State v. 9th Dist. No. 2002- ¶ Ohio-4522, 2008423, 6, 2002 (1984), WL at citing State v. Bock 16 App.3d Ohio 146, 150, 154, 16 OBR 474 N.E.2d We that recognize mаrriage is one the basic civil and funda man,
mental rights (1942), 535, 541, Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 62 S.Ct. 1655, 86 L.Ed. and we do not readily support separation forced of spouses. see, But e.g., (1998), State v. Conkle 129 Ohio 717 411 N.E.2d (upholding three-year no-contact order spouses between when a wife was the victim of husband). domestic at violence the hands of her With respect however, Hanning, there is no evidence the rеcord that he and Andrasak are married. only The reference to a relationship between the two found in the record is contained in the state’s “answer to defendant’s demand for disсovery.” A summary provided discovery state’s response identified boyfriend. Andrasak’s It is presentence conceivable investigation upon which the court relied in sentencing her contаins a reference to the couple’s being However, married. neither the state nor Andrasak made the presentence investigation part of the record. Additionally, Hanning and Andrasak do not bear the same last name. This fact hardly dispositive, but it is more understandable that the trial court might not have suspected assumed or familial relationship. Because the marital stаtus of Andrasak and Hanning is not us, in the record before we cannot say that an error Dent, was committed. 2002- ¶ Ohio-4522, Therefore, at 6. on record, the state of the Andrasak has failed to demonstrate plain error with respect to the no-contact order with Eric Hanning.
Son
The United
Supreme
States
Court has “recognized
on numerous
occasions that
the relationship betweеn parent and child is constitutionally
Quilloin
protected.”
(1978),
246, 255,
Walcott
U.S.
98 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 511. The Supreme Court of Ohio has similarly recognized the impor
tance of the relationship between parent
(1990),
and child. In re Murray
155, 157,
St.3d
which son, does not mention her the journal sentencing entry, which only refers “co-defendants,” to and the nunc tunc pro in sentencing entry which Nathaniel’s finally name appears along with the two codefendants whom the trial court specifically mentioned during the sentencing hearing. The trial procedure court’s
843
(1)
to
аt
right
present
be
two
a defendant’s
respect
in this
raises
concerns:
(2)
entry.
nunc
tunc
pro
and
use of a
sentencing
proper
the
43(A)
for
present
a criminal defendant be
requires that
“Crim.R.
11}
{¶
mоdified
subsequently
in
court is
pronounced
open
sentencing.
‘When a sentence
modification,
must have
the modification
reflects the
judgment entry
the
and
”
23758,
Mullens,
v.
9th Dist. No.
presence.’
in the
State
made
defendant’s
been
(June
¶
2001),
22,
Judgment part affirmed in part, and reversed and cause remanded. *6 Belfance, P.J., concurs.
Carr, J., in judgment concurs only.
Carr, Judge, concurring judgment only. I concur in the majority’s judgment but I am
{¶ compelled 15} to write separately to emphasize our regarding concerns the imposition of a condition of probation may infringe on a couple’s married right fundamental to compan- ionship with one another. case, Under the specific however, facts of this I agree that this court has affirm no choice but to in part, givеn the lack of evidence in the record that Andrasak and Hanning are married. may While Andrasak remedies, have other relief, such as postconviction grounds
she has no for relief on appeal direct any the absence of evidence that Hanning is her husband.
MEHTA, Appellant Cross-Appellee, UNIVERSITY, Appellee OHIO Cross-Appellant. Univ.,
[Cite as Mehta
v. Ohio
No. 09AP-886. July
Decided