State v. OrenderState v. Orender
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Willa Concannon, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
The Law Office of Wendy R. Calaway, and Wendy R. Cаlaway, for appellant.
PIPER, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Jerry Orender, was indicted by the Butler County Grand Jury on one count of receiving stolen property, a fourth-degree felony in violation of
Yes. And as an extension as such, I have forewarned him of additional cоnsequences that he could have from this Court as a result of being on PRC at the time of the offense. But he has to be sanctioned here because (indiscernible) this.
Orender added that his PRC was for a third-degree felony, possession of drugs offense. The trial court then advised Orender:
Additionally, if the Court finds that this offense was committed while you were on post release control, which sounds like it may be the case, the Court could impose an additional sentence of one year or the time remaining on postrelease control, whichever is greater as an additional consecutive sentence.
{¶2} Following a full Crim. R. 11 colloquy, Orender informed the court that he wantеd to plead guilty, which the trial court accepted.
{¶3} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on November 30, 2021. As relevant to his first assignment of error, Orender‘s trial counsеl stated that Orender “is on PRC,” which Orender then confirmed. However, contrary to his earlier representation, Orender now claimed that he was on PRC for “grand theft of key fоbs.” When it sentenced Orender, the trial court stated:
The Court has considered the record, the charge, the defendant‘s plea of guilty. Defined and set forth here in the rеcord, your oral statements, any victim impact statement, presentence report, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing under
Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.11 . And this balance, the seriousness and recidivism factors ofOhio Revised Code Section 2929.12 and whether or not community control is appropriate pursuant toOhio Revised Code Section 2929.13 .* * *
The Court will find the defendant has previously served a prison sentence, has previously served a felony prison sentence related to -- down in Kentucky -- come on. Possession of a handgun, three years in Kentucky. He‘s been to prison at least
twice in Ohio. He was on post release control at the time of the offense * * *. With respect to Count I, will sentence the defendant to 12 months in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, will give the defendant jail time credit six days. Furthermore, will find that this offense was committed while the defendаnt was on post release control.
* * * The Court will impose an additional five months’ prison sentence.
{¶4} The trial court later memorialized its findings in the sentencing entry, ordering Orender to serve a total prison term of 17 months. That is, 12 months on the new felony conviction and five months for the violation of PRC. Orender timely appeals, raising two assignmеnts of error for review.
{¶5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶6} THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IS VOID.
{¶7} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶8} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE.
{¶9} In his two assignments of error, Orender alleges that his sentence is void and argues the trial court erred when it imposed the maximum prison sentence. This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to the standard of review set forth in
{¶10} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of
{¶11} When reviewing a felony sentencing, “nothing in
{¶12} Orender claims the trial court did not have “authority” to impose an additional five-month prison term on the PRC violation in addition to the 12 months imposed for the fifth-degree felony conviction. Therefore, he claims that his sentence is “void.” He also argues the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence for a fifth-degree felony.
{¶13} Based upon review of the record, we conclude Orender‘s arguments are without merit. In this case, the trial court sentenced Orender tо prison for a new felony and also imposed a prison term for the PRC violation. Contrary to his argument otherwise, this is permissible because
{¶14} On appeal, Orender suggests that it is “unclear” whether he was on PRC at the time he committed the latest offense. However, this contradicts the multiple, unequivocal admissions made by Orender and his trial counsel below. As noted above, during the рlea hearing Orender stated that he was on PRC, which was confirmed by his trial counsel. This was further confirmed by Orender and his trial counsel during the sentencing hearing. While Orender now attеmpts to inject uncertainty into this matter, the record very clearly supports the conclusion that he, in fact, was on PRC and therefore was subject to additional рrison time pursuant to
{¶15} Furthermore, we find no error in the trial court‘s decision sentencing Orender to the maximum prison term of 12 months on the fifth-degree felony. The 12-month sentence is statutorily authorized and is supported by the record.
{¶16} Thе trial court sentenced Orender to the maximum prison sentence on a fifth-degree felony after considering, among other things, his lengthy criminal history, which included convictiоns for weapons, drugs, and theft. As discussed earlier, Orender was still
{¶17} Accordingly, we find Orender‘s sentence was not “void” or contrary to law. Orender‘s two assignments of error are overruled.
{¶18} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.