{¶ 2} In May 2003, defendant completed his six-month prison term. Upon release, defendant began serving his term of community control. In early February 2004, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Terminate Community Control Sanctions. The trial court denied the motion on February 17, 2004.
{¶ 3} Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed on May 10, 2004, states defendant is appealing from the "judgment of conviction and sentence entered on February 17, 2004 and received for filing on February 18, 2004." The sentence, however, was journalized on January 16, 2003. The ruling the court made on February 17 was to deny defendant's "Motion to Dismiss and/or terminate Community Control Sanctions."
{¶ 4} Because defendant did not timely appeal from the trial court's sentencing order journalized on January 16, 2003, this court has no jurisdiction over that issue now.
We will, nevertheless, address defendant's assignments of error.
{¶ 5} Defendant presents two assignments of error:
The trial court erred by ordering appellant to serve a consecutive sentence without making the appropriate findings required by R.C.
{¶ 6} Defendant argues the trial court erred in running his four years of community control consecutive to his six-month prison term without first making the findings required by R.C.
{¶ 7} In Thompson, defendant was sentenced to a one-year prison term for drug trafficking and four years of community controlled sanctions for the separate offense of preparation of drugs for sale. This court held that the trial court was not required to make the statutory findings and reasons described in R.C.
{¶ 8} As in Thompson, defendant in the case at bar was not sentenced to two prison terms. The trial court, therefore, did not err in not making the findings specified in R.C.
II. Appellant's rights against double jeopardy under the ohio constitution were violated when he was sentenced and punished twice for the same crime.
{¶ 9} Defendant generally contends that his prison sentence and term of community control sanctions subjected him to punishment and sentencing for the same crime twice in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the
{¶ 10} On the record before this court, defendant received a six-month prison term on his menacing by stalking conviction. He received community control sanctions on his attempted aggravated arson conviction. These penalties are separate and distinct and clearly related to two separate offenses. Thompson, supra. As such, defendant's claim that his right against double jeopardy has been violated is without merit and thus overruled.
Case dismissed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Corrigan, A.J., and Gallagher, J., concur.