STATE OF OHIO v. JAMES VARHOLICK
No. 96464
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
October 13, 2011
[Cite as State v. Varholick, 2011-Ohio-5277.]
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, P.J., Keough, J., and E. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-485615
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 13, 2011
James Varholick, pro se
Inmate No. 573-485
Marion Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 57
Marion, Ohio 43301
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Kristen L. Sobieski
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant James Varholick1 appeals the trial court‘s decision to deny his motion to correct an improper sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
{¶ 2} In 2007, the trial court found Varholick guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of
{¶ 3} In July 2009, a hearing was held to determine whether Varholick violated the terms of his community control sanctions. The trial court found that he did, terminated the remaining term of community control, and sentenced Varholick to 30 months in prison. Varholick did not directly appeal this decision.
{¶ 4} In April 2010, Varholick filed a “motion to correct improper sentence.” The trial court summarily denied his motion. It is from this decision that Varholick appeals, raising one assignment of error, which provides as follows: The “[t]rial court was within proper authority and [had] jurisdiction to review said claims.”
{¶ 5} Varholick argues that the trial court improperly sentenced him because
{¶ 6} First, the state claims that the court sentenced Varholick to the mandatory 60 days of local incarceration, thereby satisfying the statutory requirements. That much is not disputed. Varholick contends that he must have served the 60 days prior to the imposition of community control sanctions and, therefore, the state‘s first argument is
{¶ 7} Varholick‘s sole assignment of error addresses the issue of whether the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on his motion to correct the sentence. Varholick assumes the trial court denied his motion on jurisdictional grounds in light of the fact that the state raised the argument in its brief in opposition to his motion. The trial court, however, denied the motion without any supporting rationale, and we cannot presume that the trial court based its decision on the arguments contained in the state‘s brief in opposition. Furthermore, even if the court relied on the state‘s jurisdictional argument, “[a]n appellate court shall affirm a trial court‘s judgment that is legally correct on other grounds, that is, one that achieves the right result for the wrong reason, because such error is not prejudicial.” Gunton Corp. v. Architectural Concepts, Cuyahoga App. No. 89725, 2008-Ohio-693, at ¶ 11, citing Reynolds v. Budzik (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 844, 732 N.E.2d 485, at fn. 3.
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9} Varholick is partially correct. The trial court cannot impose community control sanctions prior to his serving the mandatory term of incarceration. However, the facts of the current case do not support such an argument. The trial court‘s sentencing entry of January 9, 2009, is silent as to the date of its beginning or termination. Varholick began serving his 60-day jail term on February 23, 2009. He could not be, and indeed was not, statutorily punished for violating community control sanctions until after his release from that prison term.
{¶ 10} Moreover, pursuant to
{¶ 11} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR