State v. BedellState v. Bedell
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Rachel E. Zbiegien, P.O. Box 23102, Euclid, OH 44123 (For Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Mark A. Bedell, appeals his sentence imposed by the Portage County Court of Common Pleas. Bedell plead guilty to two counts of nonsupport of dependents, in violation of
{¶2} Bedell is the father of four children. In June 2001, Bedell was first convicted for criminal nonsupport of his two sons, ages 16 and 17. In fact, at the sentencing hearing for the instant matter, Bedell was serving his sentence for this prior
{¶3} Bedell‘s sentencing hearing for the instant matter was held on March 24, 2008. The trial court reported that Bedell had a child support arrearage of $35,314.56, as of December 31, 2007. Bedell was sentenced to a combination of residential and nonresidential community control sanctions, including: a 200-day jail term; Intensive Supervision Program for one year; and 48 months under the control of the General Division of the Adult Probation Department. In addition to abiding by the standard rules of supervision, the trial court ordered the following: (1) Bedell shall undergo a mental health evaluation and follow the recommendations; (2) commencing May 1, 2008, Bedell shall abide by a payment plan of $300.93 per month, arranged by the Adult Probation Department and Child Support Enforcement Agency to satisfy all present, past, and future judgments, including arrearages in the amount of $36,000 within five years; (3) Bedell shall obtain full-time employment within six months, maintaining employment during probation.
{¶4} On June 30, 2008, this court granted Bedell‘s motion to file a delayed appeal pursuant to
{¶5} On appeal, Bedell challenges the trial court‘s sentence imposed upon him and asserts, for our review, the following two assignments of error:
{¶6} “[1.] The trial court erred in imposing a sentence upon Mr. Bedell that was contrary to law.
{¶7} “[2.] The trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Mr. Bedell to community control sanctions without considering
{¶9} After the State v. Foster decision, “[t]rial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences.” State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, at paragraph seven of the syllabus. The Supreme Court of Ohio, in a plurality opinion, has recently held that felony sentences are to be reviewed under a two-step process. State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912, at ¶26. The Court held:
{¶10} “First, [appellate courts] must examine the sentencing court‘s compliance with all applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. If this first prong is satisfied, the trial court‘s decision in imposing the term of imprisonment is reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id.
{¶11} “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court‘s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157. (Citations omitted.)
{¶13} “One community control sanction is a jail sentence.
{¶14} The March 26, 2008 judgment entry indicates the trial court imposed a 200-day jail term, granting Bedell 93 days of jail-time credit. Therefore, in order to satisfy his sentence, Bedell was required to serve an additional 107 days.
{¶15} The record reflects Bedell did not file a timely appeal. This court granted Bedell‘s motion to file a delayed appeal pursuant to
{¶16} Although Bedell has already completed his jail term, he next challenges the duration of the community control sanctions. Because Bedell‘s jail term is only one
{¶17}
{¶18} Bedell further maintains, under his second assignment of error, the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed “severe community control sanctions,” including the 200-day jail term, the total duration of his community control sanctions, the one-year placement in the Intensive Supervision Program, and paying restitution in the amount of $36,000 within five years. Bedell maintains that, “if the trial court had in fact considered the purposes of sentencing under
{¶19} As previously indicated, Bedell had completed his jail term prior to filing the instant appeal. Furthermore, it was improper for the trial court to impose community control sanctions upon Bedell that exceeded the statutory maximum under
{¶21} In imposing a sentence, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, at ¶36, determined that the factors in
{¶22} “In sentencing an offender for a felony conviction, pursuant to
R.C. 2929.11(A) , a trial court must be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing, which are ‘to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others
{¶23} While there is no reference in the sentencing entry that the trial court has considered the statutory factors as set forth above, presumably upon resentencing, the trial court will be in a position to clarify whether or not it has considered them.
{¶24} Bedell‘s assignments of error have merit to the extent indicated. Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is hereby reversed, and this matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J., concurs,
COLLEEN MARY O‘TOOLE, J., dissents.