STATE OF OHIO v. BRIAN BARNES
APPEAL NOS. C-210345, C-210346, C-210347, C-210348
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
May 25, 2022
[Cite as State v. Barnes, 2022-Ohio-1738.]
TRIAL NOS. C-20CRB-20040A, 21CRB-2991, 21CRB-1632, 20CRB-23750
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgmеnts Appealed From Are: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 25, 2022
Andrew Garth, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Rebecca Barnett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
{1} Defendant-appellant Brian Barnes appeals the trial сourt‘s sentences on four misdemeanor convictions suspending the jail term in the case numbered 21CRB-2991, imposing three consecutive 180-day jail sentences in the cases numbered C-20CRB-20040A, 21CRB-1632, and 20CRB-23750, calсulating jail-time credit, imposing no-contact orders, and ordering restitution. For the following reasons, we reverse the suspended sentence and remand the cause to the trial court to correct the sentence and the jail-time credit, and to vacate the no-contact order consistent with this opinion. The judgments of the trial court are otherwise affirmed.
Factual Background
{2} Brian Barnes pled guilty to assault in the case numbered C-20CRB-20040A, and three counts of theft in the cases numbered 21CRB-2991, 21CRB-1632, and 20CRB-23750. In the assault case, and two of the theft cases, the court sentenced Barnes to а jail term of 180 days, to be served consecutively, with credit for time served. In the theft case numbered 21CRB-2991, the trial court imposed a sentence of 180 days in jail, suspended 176 days, credited 14 days, and рlaced Barnes on two years of community control and imposed a no-contact order. The court ordered Barnes to pay restitution for the thefts.
The Jail Terms
{3} In his first assignment of error, Barnes сontends that the trial court erred when it imposed a suspended jail term and placed Barnes on community control at the same time it imposed three consecutive 180-day jail terms and miscalculated his jail-time credit.
{5} Under
{6} Misdemeanor community-control sentences are governed by
(a) Directly impose a sentence that consists of one or more community control sanctions authorized by section
2929.26 ,2929.27 , or2929.28 of the Revised Code. The court may impose any other conditions of releаse under a community control sanction that the court considers appropriate. If the court imposes a jail term upon the offender, the court may impose any community control sanction or combination of community control sanctions in addition to the jail term.
(b) Impose a jail term under section
2929.24 of the Revised Code from the range of jail terms authorized under that section for the offensе, suspend all or a portion of the jail term imposed, and place the offender under a community control sanction or combination of community control sanctions authorizеd under section2929.26 ,2929.27 , or2929.28 of the Revised Code.
{7} In the case numbered 21CRB-2991, the trial court did not sentence Barnes directly to community control. Instead, the court imposed a 180-day jail term on Barnes, suspended the jail term, and placed Barnes on two years of community control. This sentence was not run consecutively to the sentences imposed in the cases numbered C-20CRB-20040A, 21CRB-1632, and 20CRB-23750. Under
{8} Thus Barnes was sentenced to an aggregate jail term of 540 days. The first issuе is whether the 540 days exceeds the maximum aggregate term of 18 months. In computing months,
{9} Barnes was sentenced on June 8, 2021. The maximum jail term of 18 months ends on December 8, 2022, for a total of 548 days. Therefore, Barnes‘s aggregate sentence of 540 days does nоt exceed the 18-month statutory maximum.
{10} Next, Barnes contends that the trial court failed to properly calculate his jail-time credit. In the case numbered 21CRB-2991, the trial court gave Barnes credit for 14 days. In the cases numbered 21CRB-1632 and C-20CRB-20040A, the trial court ordered that Barnes receive jail-time credit but did not include the number of days he was entitled to receive.
{11} Under
{12} Here, Barnes was sentenced to three consecutive terms and one concurrent term. He was given 14 days credit on the concurrent term, аnd an unspecified number of days credit on two of the consecutive terms. Barnes is entitled
{13} Accordingly, we sustain the first assignment of error, vacate the sentence in 21CRB-2991, and remand the cause to the trial court to modify the sentence to reflect that the suspended jail sentence is limited to eight days. We аlso order the court to properly award jail-time credit of 14 days in the case numbered 21CRB-1632 since Barnes has not yet begun to serve that sentence.
The No-Contact Order
{14} In his second assignment of error, Barnes argues that the trial court erred when it ordered him to stay away from the prosecuting witnesses in the cases numbered C-20CRB-20040A, 20CRB-23750, and 21CRB-1632 as this is a community-control sanction, and he was not placed on community control in these cases.
{15} “A no-contact order is a community control sanction. A trial court can either impose community control or incarceration.” State v. Beauchamp, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210340, 2022-Ohio-738, ¶ 17. In the cases numbered C-20CRB-20040A, 20CRB-23750, and 21CRB-1632, the trial court imposed incarceration and was not authorized to impose a community-control sanction. The state also concedes the error.
{16} We sustаin the second assignment of error and remand the cause to the trial court with an instruction to vacate the no-contact orders.
{17} Next Barnes contends that the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay restitution in the cases numbered C-20CRB-20040A, 20CRB-23750, and 21CRB-1632 because the restitution was not imposed in open court at the sentencing hearing.
{18} Prior to accepting Barnes‘s guilty pleаs, the trial court and the prosecutors discussed which cases resulted in guilty pleas and which would be dismissed pursuant to the plea negotiations. They also discussed the amounts of restitution Barnes agreed to pay as part of the plea agreement. In mitigation, Barnes‘s trial counsel acknowledged that Barnes would be required to pay restitution. The court and the prosecutor, orally, and in open court, went through each case and specified the amount of restitution owed and to whom.
{19} After imposing the various jail sentences, the court again stated that restitution was ordered in all of the cases. The court did not restate the various amounts owed and to whom.
{20} If a court orders restitution,
{21} We overrule the third assignment of error.
Conclusion
{22} We reverse Barnes‘s sentence in the case numbered 21CRB-2991, and remand the cause to the trial court to modify the sentence to reflect that the suspended jail sentence is limited to eight days. We also order the court to properly awаrd jail-
Judgments affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.
BERGERON and BOCK, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.