State v. Lake, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2002)
This text of State v. Lake, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2002) (State v. Lake, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2002)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE COURT LOST JURISDICTION TO REVOKE THE PROBATIONARY STATUS OF THE DEFENDANT WHEN THE FIVE (5) YEAR PROBATIONARY TIME EXPIRED.
The record indicates appellant was convicted of felony theft but was released on shock probation on November 18, 1991. Appellant was placed on probation for a period three years subject to certain conditions, to which appellant agreed in open court.
Appellant was re-incarcerated on a new felony charge on July 10, 1992. At that time, the court sentenced appellant to a term of incarceration of five to fifteen years.
Appellant was released on parole on January 2, 1996. Thereafter, the court revoked appellant's parole on September 17, 1996. Pursuant to R.C.
On April 9, 2001, the court modified appellant's probation, extending it from the original three years to five years, or until April 11, 2002, and appellant agreed to the order and signed it. On August 24, 2001, the court issued a capias warrant and the court ordered the probation tolled again.
On September 6, 2001, the State moved to revoke probation and appellant responded with a motion to dismiss, alleging the court did not have jurisdiction and his probationary period had lapsed. The court found pursuant to statute appellant's probation had been tolled during his incarcerations. The court also found appellant had agreed to extend the probation until April 11, 2002.
R.C.
Appellant cites us to Davis v. Wolfe (2001)
Appellant also cites us to State v. Jones (1997),
The State cites us to State v. Jones (1978),
We find appellant's probation was tolled during incarceration for separate offenses, by operation of law. Additionally, during the original period of probation, the appellant agreed to extend the probation. There is nothing in the record to indicate the agreement was not knowingly and voluntarily made.
The assignment of error is overruled.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County, Ohio, is affirmed, the cause is remanded to that court for execution of sentence.
By GWIN, P.J., EDWARDS, J., and BOGGINS, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Lake, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2002), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lake-unpublished-decision-3-1-2002-ohioctapp-2002.