State v. MoffitState v. Moffit
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made: {¶ 1} Appellant, Ransome Moffit, appeals from the judgment of Summit County Court of Common Pleas which sentenced him to four years incarceration for violation of the terms of his community control. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶ 2} On July 25, 2005, Appellant pled guilty to one count of burglary in violation of
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING A PRISON SENTENCE FOR A COMMUNITY CONTROL VIOLATION WHEN IT FAILED TO NOTIFY APPELLANT IN ITS JOURNAL ENTRY OF THE SPECIFIC TERM THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED IN THE EVENT OF SUCH A VIOLATION.”
{¶ 3} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in imposing a prison sentence for his community control violation. Specifically, Appellant argues that the trial court was not permitted to sentence him to prison because his journal entry failed to specify the prison term he would receive for a violation. This Court disagrees.
{¶ 4} In support of his argument, Appellant relies upon State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746 and State v. McWilliams, 9th Dist. No. 22359, 2005-Ohio-2148. In Brooks, the Ohio Supreme Court held that:
“[P]ursuant to
R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) and2929.15(B) , a trial court sentencing an offender to a community control sanction must, at the time of sentencing, notify the offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for a violation of the conditions of the sanction, as a prerequisite to imposing a prison term on the offender for a subsequent violation.” Brooks, at ¶ 29.
Additionally, in McWilliams, this Court held that: “the Ohio Supreme Court intended [that this] * * * notification must be provided at sentencing and in the journal entry.” McWilliams at ¶ 15.
Based upon the above, Appellant urges that his sentence must be reversed. We disagree.
{¶ 5} In McWilliams, the defendant‘s journal entry contained no reference to the sanction he would receive if he violated community control. Id. at ¶ 12. Herein, Appellant‘s journal entry stated as follows:
“Violation of this sentence shall lead to more restrictive sanctions for the Defendant, up to and including a prison term of 4 years[.]”
While we recognize that this provision does not comply with the dictates of Brooks, the remaining rationale contained in Brooks compels this Court to affirm Appellant‘s sentence.
{¶ 6} In Brooks, the Court noted that “there are some situations in which we believe that something less than strict compliance will suffice.” Brooks at ¶ 32. The Court went on to explain that one such situation included a case wherein the defendant was informed of the specific term he would receive and later was merely informed that he would receive the maximum term. The Court found that when the specific term and the maximum term were the same, the trial court‘s notice would be sufficient. Id. The Court further noted that “other notifications to the offender may be used to clarify or supplement what is later said[.]” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at ¶ 18.
{¶ 7} Herein, we are confronted with similar facts. At his sentencing hearing, the trial court stated to Appellant:
“Mr. Moffit, this is your last shot. If you don‘t make it, you are going to spend four more years in prison.”
Accordingly, at his sentencing hearing, Appellant was informed of the specific prison term he would receive if he violated the terms of community control. Accordingly, Appellant was placed on notice of the specific term he would receive for a violation and the statements at his sentencing hearing also served to clarify the trial court‘s judgment entry. Consistent with the Brooks Court, “[i]t would be overly rigid in [this] case to find that the offender‘s knowledge of the maximum term for the offense [does] not satisfy the notice requirement of
III.
{¶ 8} Appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
Carr, P.J. Boyle, J. c