State v. MorrisState v. Morris
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant
KRISTINE E. COMUNALE, Atty. Reg. No. 0062037, 117 South Main Street, Suite 400, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Defendant-Appellee
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals from the sentence imposed by Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas after defendant-appellee, Ryan O. Morris, pled no contest to failure to notify in violation of
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On January 7, 2009, Morris was adjudicated а juvenile delinquent for rape, a felony of the first degree, in Hamilton County Juvenile Court Case No. 09-000216. Morris was thereafter designated a Tier III juvenile sexual offender and was required to provide notice of any change of his residence to the sheriff with whom he most recently registered his address. On January 15, 2013, Morris reported to the Montgomery County Sheriff‘s Office and registered his address at the Glover Youth Home in Dayton, Ohio. Approximately a month later, Morris left the Glover Youth Home without notifying the sheriff of his new address. As a result, on May 3, 2013, a Montgomery County Grand Jury indicted Morris for one count of failure to notify in violation of
{¶ 3} Following his indictment for failure to notify, Morris filed a motion on July 9, 2013, asking the trial court to rule that
{¶ 4} The trial court ruled in favor of Morris finding that
{¶ 5} The trial court also held that
{¶ 6} After the trial cоurt issued its decision, on October 9, 2013, Morris pled no contest to violating
{¶ 7} On January 8, 2014, the trial court sentenced Morris to community control sanctions not to exceed five yeаrs. Shortly thereafter, the State appealed the sentence. Following the appeal, on May 2, 2014, the trial court revoked Morris‘s community control sanctions for violating the conditions therеof and sentenced him to three years in prison.
{¶ 8} The State now appeals from the trial court‘s original sentence imposing community control sanctions, raising one assignment of error for reviеw.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 9} The State‘s sole assignment of error is as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MORRIS TO COMMUNITY CONTROL SANCTIONS WHEN UNDER
{¶ 10} Under its single assignment of error, the State contends the trial court erred in sentencing Morris under
{¶ 11} At the outset, we note that Morris contends the determination of this matter is moot because he has since had his community control sanctions revoked on May 2, 2014, and wаs subsequently sentenced to a three-year prison term. Based on the record before us, we do
{¶ 12} That said, we now turn to the language of
{¶ 13} In this case, Morris has a prior juvenile adjudication for first-degree felony rape and was thereafter requirеd to notify the sheriff of any changes in his address pursuant to
(A)(1)(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (A)(1)(b) of this section, whoever violates a prohibition in section * * *
2950.05 , * * * of the Revised Code shall be punished as follows:* * *
(ii) If the most serious sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense that was the basis of the registration, notice of intent to reside, change of address notification, or address verification requirement that was violated under the prohibition is a felony of the first, second, third, or fourth degree if committed by an adult or a comparаble category of offense committed in another jurisdiction, the offender is guilty of a felony of the same degree as the most serious sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense that was the basis of the registration, notice of intent to reside, change of address, or address verification requirement that was violated under the prohibition, or, if the most serious sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense that was the basis of the registration, notice of intent to reside, change of address, or address verification requirement that was violated under the prohibitiоn is a comparable category of offense committed in another jurisdiction, the offender is guilty of a felony of the same degree as that offense committed in the other jurisdiction would cоnstitute if committed in this state.
{¶ 14} Since the offense that was the basis of Morris‘s notification requirement—rape—was a felony of the first degree, Morris‘s violation of
{¶ 15} Morris, however, contends that his sentence for failing to notify is not governed
{¶ 16} However, under the doctrine of stare decisis, we are required to follow our opinion in State v. Ashford, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23311, 2010-Ohio-1681, in which we held that it is appropriate for a trial court to turn to the felony sentencing statutes when sentencing first-time violators of
{¶ 17} The facts of Ashford are almost identical to the present case. In Ashford, the defendant pled no contest to violating
Although
R.C. 2950.99(A)(2)(b) imposes a minimum mandatory prison sentence for certain repeat offenders,R.C. 2950.99(A) does not аddress the appropriate sentence for a defendant who, for the first time, has violatedR.C. 2950.05 .Ashford was required to notify the sheriff of his change of address due to a conviction for rape, a first degree felony. In accordance with
R.C. 2950.99(A)(1)(a) , Ashford‘s violation ofR.C. 2950.05 was likewise a first degree felony. BecauseR.C. 2950.99 did not address, much less mandate, the sentence for a first-time violator ofR.C. 2950.05 , the trial court appropriately turned to the felony sentencing statutes to determine Ashford‘s sentence.The sentencing range for a first degree felony is three to ten years.
R.C. 2929.14 .R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) requires the prison to be mandatory if, as in Ashford‘s case, “the offender previously was convicted of or pleaded guilty to * * * any first or second degree felony * * *.” Since Ashford was found guilty of failure to notify, a first degree felony, and had previously been convicted of a first degree felony (rape), his sentence was mandatory. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in sentencing Ashford to a mandatory, three-year prison term.
Ashford, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23311, 2010-Ohio-1681 at ¶ 9-11.
{¶ 18} Based on our holding in Ashford, and because
{¶ 19} The State‘s sole assignment of error is sustained.
Conclusion
{¶ 20} Having sustained the State‘s sole assignment of error, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FROELICH, P.J. and HALL, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck
Michele D. Phipps
Kristine E. Comunale
Hon. Dennis J. Adkins