State v. ColemanState v. Coleman
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a November 13, 2014 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, which found appellant not guilty by reason of insanity on one count of robbery, in violation of
{¶ 2} On December 16, 2014, the requisite
{¶ 3} Appellant, William Coleman, sets forth the following sole assignment of error:
The trial court erred to the prejudice of Appellant by imposing consecutive maximum terms of court supervision under
R.C. 2945.401(J)(1)(b) .
{¶ 4} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. During the early morning hours of May 18, 2014, appellant broke into his uncle’s residence while his uncle was asleep. The startled victim awoke to discover his nephew, who has a history of mental illness and who had just been released from prison, standing over his bed. Appellant stole a bottle of Percocet from the victim’s nightstand and fled. The victim pursued appellant outside onto the front porch.
{¶ 5} When the victim reached the front porch he called 9-1-1 from his cell phone. In response, appellant began assaulting the victim, preventing him from speaking with the dispatcher. Appellant then grabbed a shovel and put the victim into a chokehold. The
{¶ 6} While the victim was speaking with 9-1-1, appellant began breaking the windows of the victim’s home with a wicker table. Appellant was still inflicting damage to the home when he was subdued by the arriving police officers.
{¶ 7} Subsequently, appellant became a patient at the Northwest Ohio Psychiatric Hospital. A multitude of continuances ensued to enable psychiatric evaluations to assess appellant’s competency to stand trial. Appellant was deemed competent to face trial.
{¶ 8} On November 17, 2014, a bench trial commenced. Following trial, appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity on the robbery and burglary charges. The vandalism charge was dismissed by directed verdict.
{¶ 9} On December 16, 2014, appellant was sentenced pursuant to
{¶ 10} In the sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred by sentencing him to a 16-year period of commitment. Appellant asserts that the sentence conflicts with
{¶ 11} It is well-established under Ohio law that a trial court must not, “[I]nterpret a criminal statute so as to increase the penalty it imposes on a defendant if the intended scope of the statute is ambiguous.” State v. Elmore, 122 Ohio St.3d 472, 2009-Ohio-3478, 912 N.E.2d 582, ¶ 38. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that ambiguous statutes are to be construed in favor of the defendant, not the state, under the principles of the rule of lenity. Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971).
{¶ 12}
(J)(1) A defendant or person who has been committed pursuant to section
2945.39 or2945.40 of the Revised Code continues to be under the jurisdiction of the trial court until the final termination of the commitment. For the purposes of division (J) of this section, the final termination of a commitment occurs upon the earlier of one of the following: (b) The expiration of the maximum prison term or term of imprisonment that the defendant or person could have received if the defendant or person had been convicted of the most serious offense with which the defendant or person is charged or in relation to which the defendant or person was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
{¶ 13} In State of Ohio v. Hersh, 2012-Ohio-3807, 974 N.E.2d 161, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.), appellant was charged with three counts of menacing by stalking. The trial court found
{¶ 14} Appellant appealed the extension of her sentence on the basis that under
{¶ 15} Governing precedent, applicable statutory language, and the record of evidence all demonstrate the veracity of appellant’s position. The trial court is permitted to commit appellant for psychiatric treatment only for the maximum amount of time appellant would have received on the most serious offense. As such, appellant should have only been sentenced to a maximum commitment of eight years. Wherefore, we find appellant‘s assignment of error well-taken.
{¶ 16} Wherefore, the sentencing judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Please is hereby reversed. The case is remanded for resentencing. Appellee is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment reversed.
C.A. No. L-15-1071
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J.
CONCUR.
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.