State v. Mynatt

2025 Ohio 4474

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 25, 2025
• Docket: 115107
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Mynatt, 2025-Ohio-4474.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 115107 v. :

DONALD MYNATT, III, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 25, 2025

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-24-695091-A, CR-24-695144-A, and CR-24-695281-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas Rovito, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Edward M. Heindel, for appellant.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:

Defendant-appellant Donald Mynatt, III, appeals from the judgments

of convictions in the following three criminal cases: CR-24-695091-A, CR-24-

695144-A, and CR-24-695281-A. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the sentence

in CR-24-695091-A and remand for resentencing on that case. In CR-24-695091-A, Mynatt pled guilty to one count of attempted

domestic violence; in CR-24-695144-A, Mynatt pled guilty to one count of failure to

stop after an accident; and in CR-24-695281-A, Mynatt pled guilty to one count of

failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. All the charges Mynatt

pled guilty to were felonies.

In CR-24-695091-A, the trial court sentenced Mynatt to community-

control sanctions, which included placement in a community-based correctional

facility. In CR-24-695144-A, the trial court sentenced Mynatt to a three-year prison

term. In CR-24-695281-A, the trial court also sentenced Mynatt to a three-year

prison term. The court ordered the prison terms to be served consecutively to each

other. The court further ordered that Mynatt’s community-control sanctions in CR-

24-695091-A commence after the completion of his prison sentences in the other

two cases; that is, after Mynatt served his six-year prison term, he would be

transferred to the county jail to await placement in a community-based correctional

facility. Mynatt appeals, raising the following sole assignment of error for our

review:

The trial court committed reversible error by imposing a community control sanction consecutive to a prison term, contrary to the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Hitchcock, 157 Ohio St.3d 215, 2019-Ohio-3246, 134 N.E.3d 164.

The State has filed a notice of conceded error, in which it concedes that

the trial court erred. After review, we agree with the parties. Appellate review of felony sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2),

which states that “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, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1, 21.

In Hitchcock, 2019-Ohio-3246, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered

“whether a trial court may impose community-control sanctions on one felony count

to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed on a separate felony count.” Id.

at ¶ 1. The Court answered no. Id. In Hitchcock, the defendant pled guilty to three

counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, which were not allied offenses of

similar import because the crimes occurred on different dates. The trial court

sentenced the defendant to two prison terms on two of the counts, to be served

consecutively. On the third count, the trial court imposed a term of community-

control sanctions, to be served consecutively to the prison terms on the other two

counts. Under the terms of the community-control sanctions, the defendant was “to

be assessed for potential placement in a community-based correctional facility . . . .”

Id. at ¶ 5.

The Hitchcock Court relied on its decision in State v. Paige, 2018-Ohio-

813, in which the Court held that, absent a statutory exception under R.C. 2929.41,

a trial court does not have authority to impose a community-based-correctional-

facility term as a community-control sanction to be served consecutively to a prison

term imposed on a separate offense. Hitchcock at ¶ 8, citing Paige at ¶ 13. The exceptions under R.C. 2929.41 involve consecutive sentences for (1) misdemeanor

offenses, (2) a sentence under Ohio law and another state, and (3) certain felony

offenses. See R.C. 2929.41(B)(1)-(3). None of the exceptions apply to this case.

Thus, on the authority of Paige and Hitchcock, the sentence in CR-24-

695091-A was contrary to law.

The sentence in CR-24-695091 is vacated, and the case is remanded for

resentencing on that case.

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the

trial court for resentencing in CR-24-695091.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

________________________ MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR