State v. Little

2025 Ohio 768

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Little, 2025-Ohio-768.]

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

STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. Nos. 2024-CA-48; 2024-CA-56; : 2024-CA-57 v. : : Trial Court Case Nos. 2024CR0041; MICHAEL JUDD LITTLE SR. : 2022CR0518; 2021CR0634 : Appellant : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court)

...........

OPINION

Rendered on March 7, 2025

STEVEN H. ECKSTEIN, Attorney for Appellant

MEGAN HAMMOND, Attorney for Appellee

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

TUCKER, J.

{¶ 1} This matter comes before us upon three consolidated appeals by defendant

Michael Judd Little, Sr.

{¶ 2} In Greene C.P. Nos. 2021CR0634 and 2022CR0518, Little appeals from the

trial court’s imposition of concurrent 24-month prison terms after revoking community

control on drug charges. In Greene C.P. No. 2024CR0041, he appeals from the trial -2-

court’s imposition of a consecutive 36-month prison term following his guilty plea to having

a weapon while under disability.

{¶ 3} Little contends the trial court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence in the

weapon-under-disability case without making findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). He

also claims the trial court lacked authority to impose a consecutive sentence because it

failed to advise him of that possibility when originally imposing community-control

sanctions in the two drug cases.

{¶ 4} We agree that the trial court failed to make required findings before imposing

a consecutive sentence in Case No. 2024CR0041. We are unpersuaded, however, that

the trial court lacked authority to order that sentence to be served consecutively to the

concurrent sentences in Case Nos. 2021CR0634 and 2022CR0518.

{¶ 5} For the reasons set forth below, the trial court’s judgments imposing

concurrent sentences in Case Nos. 2021CR0634 and 2022CR0518 will be affirmed. The

trial court’s judgment imposing a consecutive sentence in Case No. 2024CR0041 will be

reversed, and that case will be remanded for the trial court either to make the necessary

findings or to impose a concurrent sentence.

I. Background

{¶ 6} In November 2021, a grand jury indicted Little on one count of aggravated

drug possession in Case No. 2021CR0634. In November 2022, a grand jury indicted Little

on multiple charges, including one count of aggravated drug possession, in Case No.

2022CR0518. He later pled guilty to one count of aggravated drug possession in each

case in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced him -3-

to five years of community control in each drug case.

{¶ 7} In January 2024, the Adult Probation Department alleged that Little had

violated his community control due to being charged with having a weapon while under

disability and another offense in Case No. 2024CR0041. After Little admitted the violation,

the trial court revoked community control and imposed concurrent 24-month prison

sentences in Case Nos. 2021CR0634 and 2022CR0518.

{¶ 8} In the new case, Little pled guilty to having a weapon while under disability

in exchange for dismissal of other charges. The trial court imposed his sentence at the

same time it sentenced him in the two revocation cases. For the weapon-under-disability

offense, the trial court imposed a 36-month prison term in Case No. 2024CR0041. It

ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the concurrent 24-month prison terms

imposed in the revocation cases. Little timely appealed in all three cases, advancing two

assignments of error.

II. Analysis

{¶ 9} The first assignment of error states:

THE TRIAL COURT’S IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES

BETWEEN 2024CR0041 AND THE TWO COMMUNITY CONTROL

CASES, 2021CR0634 AND 2022CR0518, FAILED TO COMPORT WITH

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

{¶ 10} Little contends the trial court failed to make any of the findings required by

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when imposing a consecutive sentence in the weapon-under-

disability case. The State concedes error, and we agree. The trial court sentenced Little -4-

in the weapon-under-disability case and in the revocation drug cases on July 3, 2024.

Having reviewed a transcript of the sentencing hearing, we note the absence of findings

under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). When disposing of the three cases, the trial court appears to

have overlooked the issue. Accordingly, we will reverse the trial court’s judgment in Case

No. 2024CR0041 and remand that case for the trial court either to make the necessary

statutory findings or to impose a concurrent sentence. The first assignment of error is

sustained.

{¶ 11} The second assignment of error states:

THE TRIAL COURT HAS LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES BETWEEN 2021CR0634 OR 2022CR0518

AND ANY NEW FELONY SINCE AUGUST 2, 2023, WHEN THE TRIAL

COURT FAILED TO NOTIFY THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT OF THE

POSSIBILITY AT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S SENTENCING TO

COMMUNITY CONTROL.

{¶ 12} Little contends the trial court lacked authority to run his weapon-under-

disability sentence consecutive to the concurrent sentences imposed in the drug cases.

He claims the trial court failed to advise him about the possibility of consecutive

sentencing when it imposed community-control sanctions in the two drug cases. That

being so, he maintains that the trial court lacked authority to order a consecutive sentence

upon revocation. In support, he cites State v. Jones, 2022-Ohio-4485.

{¶ 13} Upon review, we find Little’s reliance on Jones to be misplaced. It involved

a defendant who pled guilty to child endangering. The trial court sentenced her to five -5-

years of community control with a two-year prison sentence reserved. The trial court did

not advise the defendant that if she violated community control, she could be ordered to

serve the reserved sentence consecutively to any other sentence. The defendant later

was charged with robbery in another county. She was convicted and sentenced to three

years in prison. As a result of that conviction, the trial court revoked community control in

the child-endangering case. It ordered the reserved two-year prison sentence to be

served consecutively to the three-year robbery sentence. The Seventh District Court of

Appeals affirmed. It held that the trial court had had no obligation to advise the defendant

about the possibility of a consecutive sentence upon revocation when it imposed

{¶ 14} In Jones, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed. The issue was “whether at the

time a court imposes community control, it must notify the offender that a consecutive

sentence is a possibility on revocation of community control in order for the court to have

the authority, on revocation, to require that the reserved prison term be served

consecutively with another prison sentence.” Id. at ¶ 11. In resolving the issue, the

majority in Jones held “that a reserved prison term may be ordered to be served

consecutively to any other sentence at a community-control-revocation hearing if notice

was given when the prison term was reserved that the term could be required to be served

consecutively to another prison term at the time of revocation.” Id. at ¶ 15.

{¶ 15} Unlike Jones, the trial court in Little’s case did not order the 24-month

sentences in the community-control-revocation drug cases to be served consecutively to

the 36-month sentence in the weapon-under-disability case. Instead, it ordered the -6-

sentence in the weapon-under-disability case to be served consecutively to existing

concurrent sentences in the drug cases. During the July 3, 2024 sentencing hearing, the

trial court began orally sentencing Little in the weapon-under-disability case before turning

to the drug cases. After announcing the 24-month sentences in the drug case, the trial

court stated that “these sentences are to be served concurrently to one another, but

consecutively to the 36 months in 2024CR0041.” See July 3, 2024 Sentencing Tr. at 20.

The prosecutor immediately stopped the trial court, and an off-the-record discussion

occurred.

{¶ 16} When the hearing resumed, the trial court announced that it was vacating

the sentences orally imposed in all three cases. Id. at 20-21. The trial court started over

and first imposed concurrent 24-month prison terms in the two drug cases. Id. at 21-22.

It then turned to the weapon-under-disability case and imposed a 36-month prison

sentence to be served consecutively to the concurrent sentences in the drug cases. Id.

at 26-27.

{¶ 17} Similarly, the final judgment entries in the two drug cases made the 24-

month prison sentences concurrent to one another. Those entries were filed at 12:47 p.m.

on July 3, 2024. The final judgment entry in the weapon-under-disability case made the

36-month prison sentence consecutive to the concurrent sentences in the drug cases.

That judgment entry was filed at 2:38 p.m. on July 3, 2024. Therefore, as a trial court

speaks through its journal entries, Little was sentenced in the community-control-

revocation drug cases before the trial court imposed its consecutive sentence in the

weapon-under-disability case. -7-

{¶ 18} We see nothing in Jones precluding a trial court from imposing a later

sentence on a new charge consecutively to an earlier sentence imposed upon the

revocation of community control. That is what occurred in Little’s case. The trial court

orally imposed concurrent drug sentences before imposing a consecutive sentence in the

weapon-under-disability case. The trial court then journalized the concurrent sentences

in the drug cases before journalizing the consecutive sentence in the weapon-under-

disability case. Jones is distinguishable as it involved a different scenario, namely a

community-control-revocation sentence being ordered to be served consecutively to an

earlier sentence.

{¶ 19} Given that the trial court did not order Little’s concurrent drug sentences to

be served consecutively to any other sentence, its failure to advise him about the potential

for consecutive sentences when imposing community control is immaterial for present

purposes. The second assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 20} The trial court’s judgments in Case Nos. 2021CR0634 and 2022CR0518

are affirmed.

{¶ 21} The trial court’s judgment in Case No. 2024CR0041 is reversed, and the

case is remanded for the trial court either to make the necessary findings or to impose a

concurrent sentence.

LEWIS, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur. -8-