prison sentence violation in Ohio

2025ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II {¶17} The appellant argues in his second assignment of error that the prison sentence for his violation of community control does not comply with the requirements of State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51 (1990), as he was sanctioned contrary to law under R.C. 2929.18.

2025ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II {¶17} The appellant argues in his second assignment of error that the prison sentence for his violation of community control does not comply with the requirements of State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51 (1990), as he was sanctioned contrary to law under R.C. 2929.18.

2026State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016). {¶27} This Court has stated, “A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court ‘considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post-release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.’” State v. Morris, 2021-Ohio-2646, ¶ 90 (5th Dist.). {¶28} In exercising its discretion under R.C. 2929.141, a trial court is not required to make any findings before terminating post-release control and imposing a prison sentence for

2025"It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a contrary result." Id. {¶ 20} In exercising its discretion under R.C. 2929.141, a trial court is not required to make any findings before terminating post-release control and imposing a prison sentence for the violation, but "must consider the statutory criteria that apply to any felony offense, including those set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12." State v. King, 2022- Ohio-

2023Mehl at ¶ 18. {¶21} Previously, the Supreme Court of Ohio defined “nontechnical community-control violation” in State v. Nelson, 162 Ohio St.3d 338 , 2020-Ohio-3690 , 165 N.E.3d 1110, ¶ 26 .

2023Mehl at ¶ 18. {¶21} Previously, the Supreme Court of Ohio defined “nontechnical community-control violation” in State v. Nelson, 162 Ohio St.3d 338 , 2020-Ohio-3690 , 165 N.E.3d 1110, ¶ 26 .

2022Cuyahoga No. 109645, 2021-Ohio-850, ¶ 25 .

2020Jackson, 2016-Ohio-8127 at ¶ 13 . {¶40} When imposing a prison sentence on a violation, the supreme court has stated that the trial court must "consider both the seriousness of the original offense leading - 14 - Warren CA2019-10-109 to the imposition of community control and the gravity of the community control violation." Brooks at ¶ 20.

2017He argues that he was not informed that a violation of post-release control could result not only in receiving a prison sentence for the violation, but also that such sentence would necessarily be served consecutively to any prison term he received for committing a new crime. {¶19} In State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010–Ohio–6238, the Ohio Supreme Court held, in pertinent part, “A sentence that does not include the statutorily mandated term of post-release control is void, is not precluded from appellate review by principles of res judicata, and may be reviewed at any time, on direct ap

2017He argues that he was not informed that a violation of post-release control could result not only in receiving a prison sentence for the violation, but also that such sentence would necessarily be served consecutively to any prison term he received for committing a new crime. {¶19} In State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010–Ohio–6238, the Ohio Supreme Court held, in pertinent part, “A sentence that does not include the statutorily mandated term of post-release control is void, is not precluded from appellate review by principles of res judicata, and may be reviewed at any time, on direct ap

2016Id. {¶ 10} The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, Ohio Sup. Ct. Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio- 1002, ¶ 1.

2006II {¶ 7} Wright's First Assignment of Error is as follows: {¶ 8} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S `MOTION TO TERMINATE DEFENDANT'S COMMUNITY CONTROL SANCTIONS' AND IN SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT WHEN THE HIS [sic] TERM OF COMMUNITY CONTROL HAD EXPIRED PRIOR TO THE SENTENCING." {¶ 9} Wright relies upon Davis v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 549 , 2001-Ohio-1281 , for the proposition that a trial court loses jurisdiction to terminate a community control sanction, and impose a prison sentence for the violation of the community control sanction, once the term of the community control sanction has

2006II {¶ 7} Wright's First Assignment of Error is as follows: {¶ 8} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S `MOTION TO TERMINATE DEFENDANT'S COMMUNITY CONTROL SANCTIONS' AND IN SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT WHEN THE HIS [sic] TERM OF COMMUNITY CONTROL HAD EXPIRED PRIOR TO THE SENTENCING." {¶ 9} Wright relies upon Davis v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 549 , 2001-Ohio-1281 , for the proposition that a trial court loses jurisdiction to terminate a community control sanction, and impose a prison sentence for the violation of the community control sanction, once the term of the community control sanction has

2004Id. at 281 . {¶ 13} Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court was precluded from imposing a prison sentence for violation of a community control sanction when it failed to indicate the possible prison sentence at the sentencing hearing.

2003See State v. Grodhaus (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 615 , 761 N.E.2d 80 (reasoning that R.C. 2929.19[B][5] means what it says and should be enforced exactly as written); State v. Giles, Hamilton App. No. C-010582, 2002-Ohio-3297 , 2002 WL 1393559 , ¶10 (concluding that “in the usual case, literal compliance with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) is required as a precondition to imposing a prison sentence for a violation of community-control sanctions”); but, see, State v. Mynhier (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 217, 224 , 765 N.E.2d 917 (finding substantial compliance with R.C. 2929.19[B][5], over a strong dissent, where

2003See State v. Grodhaus (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 615 , 761 N.E.2d 80 (reasoning that R.C. 2929.19[B][5] means what it says and should be enforced exactly as written); State v. Giles, Hamilton App. No. C-010582, 2002-Ohio-3297 , 2002 WL 1393559 , ¶10 (concluding that “in the usual case, literal compliance with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) is required as a precondition to imposing a prison sentence for a violation of community-control sanctions”); but, see, State v. Mynhier (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 217, 224 , 765 N.E.2d 917 (finding substantial compliance with R.C. 2929.19[B][5], over a strong dissent, where