State v. Imler
This text of 2020 Ohio 159 (State v. Imler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Imler, 2020-Ohio-159.]
COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- : : Case No. 19-CA-21 : 19-CA-22 JACKIE IMLER : : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. 15-CR- 134 and 17-CR-219
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 15, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant:
R. KYLE WITT THOMAS R. ELWING FAIRFIELD CO. PROSECUTOR 60 West Columbus Street CYNTHIA ELLISON Pickerington, OH 43147 239 West Main, 101 Lancaster, OH 43130 Fairfield County, Case Nos. 19-CA-21, 19-CA-22 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Jackie Imler appeals from the April 8, 2019 Entries Revoking
Community Control of the Fairfield Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
{¶2} This is a consolidated appeal of 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 19-CA-21 and 19-
CA-22.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶3} In August 2015, appellant entered guilty pleas to one violation of child
endangering pursuant to R.C. 2919.22(B)(6), a felony of the third degree [Count I], and
one count of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs
pursuant to R.C. 2925.041(A), also a felony of the third degree [Count III]. The matter
was docketed as Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas case number 15-CR-134. The
trial court imposed a prison term of 18 months upon Count III, and a 3-year term of
community control upon Count I, to be served consecutively to the prison term. The trial
court reserved the authority to impose an additional prison term of 12 months if appellant
violated the terms of community control.
{¶4} In November 2015, appellant sought and was granted early judicial release
from the 18-month prison term. Appellant then began to serve the 3-year term of
community control.
{¶5} On May 11, 2017, appellant appeared before the trial court upon allegations
she violated the terms of community control in case number 15-CR-134, and upon a new
bill of information for one count of aggravated drug possession pursuant to R.C.
2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth degree. The latter charge was docketed as
Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas case number 17-CR-219. Fairfield County, Case Nos. 19-CA-21, 19-CA-22 3
{¶6} Appellant admitted violating the terms of community control and entered a
plea of guilty to the new drug possession charge. In case number 15-CR-134, the trial
court ordered appellant to serve the balance of the 18-month prison term [Count III]. The
trial court further ordered that appellant would remain on community control for the
offense of child endangering [Count I].
{¶7} In case number 17-CR-219, the trial court imposed a 3-year term of
community control to be served consecutively to the sentence in 15-CR-134. The trial
court ordered the 3-year term of community control to be tolled while appellant was in
prison and reserved the authority to order an 8-month term of imprisonment for a future
violation of the terms of community control.
{¶8} On April 8, 2019, appellant again appeared before the trial court to admit
violating the terms of community control. The trial court thereupon imposed the reserved
12-month term [Count I, 15-CR-134] and the reserved 8-month term [17-CR-219] for a
total prison term of 20 months.
{¶9} Appellant now appeals from the trial court’s “Entry Revoking Community
Control” of April 8, 2019 in case number 15-CR-134 and its “Entry Revoking Community
Control” of April 8, 2019 in case number 17-CR-219.
{¶10} Appellant raises one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶11} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING A PRISON TERM AS A
SANCTION FOR VIOLATING COMMUNITY CONTROL WHERE THE SENTENCE
PLACING APPELLANT ON COMMUNITY CONTROL SANCTIONS WAS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AND WAS THEREFORE VOID.” Fairfield County, Case Nos. 19-CA-21, 19-CA-22 4
ANALYSIS
{¶12} Appellant argues the trial court erred in imposing a community-control
sanction on one or more felony counts to be served consecutively to a term of
imprisonment imposed upon one or more other felony counts. We agree.
{¶13} We begin by noting that appellee concedes the trial court erred in
sentencing appellant to a term of community control to be served consecutively to a term
of imprisonment in case numbers 15-CR-134 and 17-CR-219.
{¶14} We previously approved sentences in which a trial court imposed
community control consecutive to a prison term. In State v. Hitchcock, we determined that
in a case in which a defendant is sentenced on three separate counts, a trial court may
impose two sixty-month prison terms, consecutive to each other (Counts I and II), and
consecutive to a term of community control (Count III). 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 16-CA-41,
2017-Ohio-8255, appeal accepted, 152 Ohio St.3d 1405, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 877.
See also, State v. Williams, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 17-CA-43, 2018-Ohio-4580, ¶
22, motion to certify allowed, 154 Ohio St.3d 1519, 2019-Ohio-768, 118 N.E.3d 257.
{¶15} The Ohio Supreme Court has now overruled our decision, determining as
follows in State v. Hitchcock, 157 Ohio St.3d 215, 2019-Ohio-3246, 134 N.E.3d 164, at ¶
24:
Because no provision of the Revised Code authorizes trial
courts to impose community-control sanctions on one felony count
to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed on another
felony count, we must conclude that trial courts may not do so. We
accordingly * * * conclude that unless otherwise authorized by Fairfield County, Case Nos. 19-CA-21, 19-CA-22 5
statute, a trial court may not impose community-control sanctions on
one felony count to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed
on another felony count.
{¶16} Therefore, we conclude that in the instant case, the trial court was not
authorized to impose a term of community control consecutive to a term of imprisonment.
Appellant’s sentences are reversed and vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings.
CONCLUSION
{¶17} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained. We accordingly reverse
the judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas and remand this case to the
trial court for resentencing consistent with this opinion. Hitchcock, supra, 2019-Ohio-
3246 at ¶ 25.
By: Delaney, J.,
Gwin, P.J. and
Hoffman, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2020 Ohio 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-imler-ohioctapp-2020.