State v. PapaState v. Papa
Dеfendant-appellant Emil Papa was indicted for a single count of theft (
After finding the appellant guilty on May 3, 1988, the court asked appellant if appellant was aware there would be civil litigatiоn involving this matter and that the court “doesn’t look at itself as a collection agency for other pеople.” The defendant answered, “Yes, sir.”
On June 22, 1988, the court journalized the following entry in this case:
“ * * * said defendant, Emil J. Papa, Jr., shall be imprisoned and confined in the Correctional Reception Center, Orient, Ohio for а term of two (2) years and pay a fine of $2,000.00 and pay the cost of this prosecution for which executiоn is awarded.
“Execution of time suspended. Defendant to serve five (5) years probation, pay fine of $2,000.00 within tеn (10) months and restitution of $57,490.88 within five (5) years.”
In a second journal entry also dated June 22, 1988, the court stated:
“The Court, on its оwn motion, changes the terms of probation to a $2,000.00 fine. The Court finds that because of a possible discrepancy in the amount of restitution that this should be resolved by civil litigation.”
Oh September 8, 1988, the court journalized thе following entry:
“Defendant’s terms of probation corrected to read: Defendant is on 5 years probаtion. Defendant to pay $2,000.00 fine. Restitution is ordered resolved by civil litigation.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
I
“Trial court erred in attempting to modify the defendant’s sentence on September 8, 1988 after the defendant had previously been sentencеd on June 22, 1988 and the defendant had commenced execution of the sentence.”
II
“Assuming arguendo that the trial court had authority to enter the judgment journalized on September 8, 1988, the court’s entry of the judgment without conduсting a hearing and affording the defendant an opportunity to be present at the court violated the dеfendant’s rights under the Ohio and Federal Constitution^] and Criminal Rule 43.”
Appellant contends that the second journal entry dated June 22, 1988 supersedes the first entry dated June 22, 1988, eliminating that portion of the sentence requiring appеllant to serve five years of probation. Appellant
*148
further argues that the September 8, 1988 journal entry modifies appellant’s sentence of June 22 and is void because appellant had commencеd execution of the sentence and was not present under
The law is that a criminal sentence may bе modified before execution of the sentence commences if the circumstances justify that aсtion without being barred by double jeopardy restrictions.
Beatty v. Alston
(1975),
We intеrpret the language of the first entry of June 22 as requiring appellant serve five years’ probation only to allow him five years to make restitution. Since the court stated its intention not to require restitution at the heаring, it appears that the court filed the second entry of June 22 to eliminate restitution. When the court delеted the restitution, the condition of five years’ probation was also eliminated. The second entry clearly states that it “ * * * changes the terms of probation to a $2,000 fine.” Nowhere in the entry does it state that the fivе years’ probation is continued. Thus, we find that the second entry correctly constitutes the court’s sentence of appellant, requiring him to be on probation only until he pays a $2,000 fine.
As to the September 8, 1988 journal entry, appellant correctly states that the court cannot modify a sentence after exеcution of the sentence has commenced.
Columbus v. Messer
(1982),
Assignments of Error I and II are affirmed as modified.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
III
“Assuming arguendo that the trial court had authority tо enter the order of September 8, 1988, that order is invalid to the extent that it delegates to the civil courts the right to set the amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant, Emil J. Papa, Jr. and to the extent that it orders restitutiоn in violation of the plea bargain agreement.”
Appellant argues that the last sentence of the September 8, 1988 order, “Restitution is ordered resolved by civil litigation,” is invalid in that it *149 delegates to the civil courts thе right to set the amount of restitution to be paid by the appellant and to the extent that it orders restitution.
An examination of the language used by the court leads us to conclude that the court meant only that restitution should be sought, if at all, in a civil and not a criminal proceeding. Appellant’s contention that the criminаl court ordered restitution or would enforce any action involving restitution is not well founded in light of the June 22 journal entries and the court’s statement that it would not act as a collection agency. This assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed as modified.