State v. Guadagno

2024 Ohio 5235

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 1, 2024
• Docket: 30093
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Guadagno, 2024-Ohio-5235.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : Appellant : C.A. No. 30093 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2023 CR 02875/3 : MICHAEL AIDEN GUADAGNO : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellee : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on November 1, 2024

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellant

J. DAVID TURNER, Attorney for Appellee

.............

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} The State of Ohio appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court

of Common Pleas, which terminated Defendant-Appellee Michael A. Guadagno’s

community control. For the reasons outlined below, we reverse the judgment of the trial -2-

court and remand for reimposition of the original community control sanctions.

{¶ 2} On October 2, 2023, Guadagno was indicted on charges of improperly

discharging a firearm at or into a habitation in violation of R.C. 2923.161(A)(1);

discharging of a firearm on or near prohibited premises in violation of R.C.

2923.162(A)(3)/(C)(2); and improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle in violation

of R.C. 2923.16(B). The charges arose from an incident in which Guadagno and several

co-defendants drove past a house in Moraine and opened fire from their vehicle on a

group of people standing outside.

{¶ 3} As part of a plea agreement, Guadagno pleaded guilty to one count of

improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation and one count of discharging of a

firearm on or near prohibited premises. The count of improper handling of a firearm in a

motor vehicle was dismissed. The parties also agreed to a prison term of not more than

six years.

{¶ 4} On February 14, 2024, the trial court sentenced Guadagno to community

control. Guadagno’s community control sanctions included a term of intensive probation

supervision for a period not to exceed five years, a substance abuse assessment and

random drug tests, and a requirement that Guadagno obtain employment and provide the

court with employment verification. The trial court scheduled the matter for a “review

hearing” on March 26, 2024.

{¶ 5} However, on March 8, 2024, before the scheduled review hearing, the trial

court terminated Guadagno’s community control sanctions by entry, finding that, although

he had not met all of the conditions of community control, an extension of the community -3-

control period would serve no further benefit.

{¶ 6} The State of Ohio appealed the trial court’s entry terminating Guadagno’s

community control. Guadagno filed a notice of conceded error, stipulating and

acknowledging that the trial court had erred when it terminated his community control

sanctions.

{¶ 7} The State asserts the following sole assignment of error:

Because no evidence was offered to show that Guadagno, who had

been on community control for less than one month, had fulfilled the

conditions of his sanctions for a significant period of time and in an

exemplary manner, the trial court lacked the statutory authority to terminate

Guadagno’s community control.

{¶ 8} The State contends that the trial court erred by granting Guadagno an

incomplete termination of his community control, specifically asserting that Guadagno had

been on community control for less than one month and that no evidence was offered to

show that he had completed any of his community control sanctions, let alone completed

his sanctions for a significant period of time and in an exemplary manner. The State also

asserts that the trial court terminated Guadagno’s community control without a hearing

and without notice to the prosecutor or victims of its intention. By doing so, the State

argues that the trial court’s termination of Guadagno’s community control in the manner

it did violated R.C. 2929.15 and constituted reversible error. We agree.

{¶ 9} R.C. 2929.15 governs community control sanctions and provides that, if an

offender fulfills the conditions of a sanction imposed pursuant to R.C. 2929.16, 2929.17, -4-

or 2929.18 for a significant period of time and in an exemplary manner, a court “may

reduce the period of time under the sanction or impose a less restrictive sanction, but the

court shall not permit the offender to violate any law or permit the offender to leave the

state without the permission of the court or the offender’s probation officer.” R.C.

2929.15(C). “Trial courts lack any statutory authority to terminate community control

outside the statutory framework provided in R.C. 2929.15(C).” State v. Weeks, 2021-

Ohio-3735, ¶ 13-14 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Ogle, 2017-Ohio-869, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.),

citing State v. Castillo, 2011-Ohio-1821, ¶ 26 (2d Dist.) (a trial court has no power to

modify a sentence or terminate community control except under R.C. 2929.15(C) where

the offender, “for a significant period of time, fulfills the conditions of a sanction in an

exemplary manner”).

{¶ 10} In this case, because the trial court terminated Guadagno’s community

control less than a month after sentencing, Guadagno could not have satisfied the

prerequisites of R.C. 2929.15(C) regarding the termination of the sanctions: that an

offender “for a significant period of time, fulfills the sanctions in an exemplary manner.”

See Castillo at ¶ 26. The trial court simply stated that, although Guadagno had “not met

all of the conditions of community control,” an extension of the community control period

“will serve no further benefit,” which did not fulfill the statutory requirements under R.C.

2929.15(C). Therefore, we agree that the trial court erred when it terminated Guadagno’s

community control sanctions in its March 8, 2024 order.

{¶ 11} The State of Ohio’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the

trial court is reversed and remanded for reimposition of the original community control -5-

EPLEY, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.