State v. FieldsState v. Fields
Rendered on the 29th day of October, 2021.
IAN A. RICHARDSON, Atty. Reg. No. 0100124, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County Prosecutor‘s Office, Appellate Division, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appelleе
MARKUS L. MOLL, Atty. Reg. No. 0093795 & KRISTIE L. GOTWALD, Atty. Reg. No. 0097608, 2621 Dryden Road, Suite 306, Dayton, Ohio 45439 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Malcolm Fields was convicted of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OVI), in violation of
{¶ 2} For the following reasons, the trial court‘s judgment will be reversеd and the matter will be remanded for the trial court to reduce Fields‘s aggregate prison term to 30 months, to notify Fields of the mandatory portion of his sentence, and for the proper imposition of post-release control.
I. Procedural History
{¶ 3} On December 16, 2019, Fields was indicted on two counts of OVI (three or more prior offenses), both felonies of the fourth degree. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, and after deliberations, the jury found him guilty of both offenses. On March 16, 2020, the trial court merged the two OVI counts and sentenced Fields to 120 days in prison plus an additional 30 months in prison for violating
{¶ 4} Fields appealed his conviction, raising three assignments of error. He argued that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by withdrawing his motion to suppress, that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence and against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that his sentence was not clearly and convincingly supported by the record. We overruled each assignment of error and affirmed. State v. Fields, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2020-CA-19, 2020-Ohio-5538.
{¶ 5} Fields subsequently sought to reopen his direct appeal. In his amended application, he claimed that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise: (1) thе trial court erred in failing to correctly advise Fields of the consequences if he failed to comply with post-release control, (2) Fields‘s sentence was contrary to law, because the trial court did not consider the principles and purposes of sentencing, (3) Fields‘s aggregate 34-month prison sentence was outside the statutory range and contrary to law, (4) the trial court violated Fields‘s right tо due process when it denied a motion for a continuance, (5) the trial court violated Fields‘s right to due process when it precluded him from calling an expert witness at trial, (6) cumulative errors by trial cоunsel resulted in ineffective assistance, and (7) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to convey information regarding plea negotiations. We reopened Fields‘s appeal to allow him to challenge his aggregate sentence and the imposition of post-release control, but otherwise overruled his application for reopening. (Decision & Entry, Aug. 4, 2020.)
{¶ 6} Fields now raises two assignments of error.
II. Post-Release Control
{¶ 7} In his first assignment of error, Fields claims that the trial court erred when it failed to properly notify him that he would be subject to a discretionary three-year term of post-release control and that any viоlation of post-release control would subject him to additional time up to one-half of his original term.
{¶ 8} At the outset, Fields asserts that his sentence is void due to the trial court‘s failure to properly impose post-release control. Fields is incorrect. In 2020, the Ohio
{¶ 9} Fields was convicted of a felony of the fourth degree and was subject to a discretionary period of post-release control of up to three years after his release from prison. Seе
{¶ 10} When the trial court imposes a prison sentence, the trial court must notify the defendant at sentencing that he or she may be supervised under post-release control.
{¶ 11} At sentencing, the trial court told Fields that he could be placed on post-release control for up to three years. Although it advised him of the potentiаl consequences if he were convicted of a new felony while on post-release control, it did not advise him, as required by
{¶ 12} Fields‘s first assignment of error is sustained.
III. OVI Prison Sentence
{¶ 13} In his second assignment of error, Fields claims that the trial court erred when it sentenced him “to a sentence contradictory to law as it was outside the statutory guidelines.” Specifically, he argues that his total sentence must fall within the sentencing range for a fourth-degree OVI felony, which he contends has a maximum of 30 months in prison. Fields further argues that his sentence was “unconstitutional,” because the trial court failed to articulate which portion of his sentence was mandatory.
{¶ 14} OVI offenses have specific sentencing provisions.
{¶ 15}
{¶ 16} Because Fields was not convicted of the specification in
If the court imposes a mandatory prison term, notwithstanding division (A)(4) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code, it also may sentence the offender to a definite prison term thаt shall be not less than six months and not more than thirty months and the prison terms shall be imposed as described in division (G)(2) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code.
{¶ 17}
* * * shall be reduced by the sixty or one hundrеd twenty days imposed upon
the offender as the mandatory prison term. The total of the additional prison term imposed under division (B)(4) of this section plus the sixty or one hundred twenty days imposed as the mandatory prison term shall equal a definite term in the rаnge of six months to thirty months for a fourth degree felony OVI offense * * * . If the court imposes an additional prison term under division (B)(4) of this section, the offender shall serve the additional prison term after the offender has served the mandatory prison term required for the offense. * * *
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 18} Stated simply,
{¶ 19} The State concedes that
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 20} For the foregoing reasons, the trial court‘s judgment will be reversed, and the matter will be remanded for the trial court to reduce Fields‘s aggregate prison term to 30 months, to notify Fields of the mandatory portion of his sentence, and for the proper imposition of post-release control.
TUCKER, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Ian A. Richardson
Markus L. Moll
Kristie L. Gotwald
Malcolm Fields
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter