State v. Rabe

2013 Ohio 4867
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 4, 2013
DocketCA2013-04-027
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2013 Ohio 4867 (State v. Rabe) 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.

Bluebook
State v. Rabe, 2013 Ohio 4867 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Rabe, 2013-Ohio-4867.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLERMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-04-027

: OPINION - vs - 11/4/2013 :

DAVID L. RABE, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2009-CR-0583

D. Vincent Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Judith A. Brant, 76 S. Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee

David L. Rabe, #A676-659, London Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 69, London, Ohio 43140, defendant-appellant, pro se

RINGLAND, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, David L. Rabe, appeals from the judgment of the

Clermont County Common Pleas Court denying his motion to correct an unlawful sentence.

For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this cause for

further proceedings.

{¶ 2} In 2010, appellant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the Clermont CA2013-04-027

influence of alcohol or drugs (OVI) in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), a felony of the fourth

degree, for which he was sentenced to five years of community control. As one of the terms

and conditions of his community control, appellant was ordered to serve 60 days in the

Clermont County Jail. The trial court's sentencing entry notified appellant that any violation of

the terms of his sentence could lead to a longer or more restrictive sanction, including a

prison term of 29 months.

{¶ 3} In 2012, appellant was again arrested and charged with OVI. As a result, the

trial court revoked appellant's community control and sentenced him to 29 months in prison.

Two months later, appellant filed a motion to correct an unlawful sentence, arguing that,

under R.C. 2929.15(B) and 2929.14(A), the maximum possible prison sentence the trial court

could have imposed on him for violating the terms of his community control was 18 months,

notwithstanding the fact that he was provided with notice at his original sentencing hearing

that the court could impose a prison sentence of 29 months if he violated the terms of his

community control.

{¶ 4} The trial court overruled appellant's motion to correct an unlawful sentence.

The trial court determined that, while R.C. 2929.14(A) provided the "general sentencing

guideline" for fourth-degree felony offenses, R.C. 2929.14(B)(4) provided the "more specific

sentencing guideline" for fourth-degree felony OVI offenses. The trial court further

determined that R.C. 2929.14(B)(4) "specifically provides the potential sentence of six

months to thirty months in prison, with the applicable mandatory incarceration time of sixty

days." Therefore, the trial court concluded that appellant's 29-month prison sentence was

lawful under R.C. 2929.14(B)(4).

{¶ 5} Rabe now appeals from the trial court's decision overruling his motion to correct

an unlawful sentence and assigns the following as error:

{¶ 6} "A COMMON PLEAS COURT IS LIMITED TO A SENTENCE THAT IS -2- Clermont CA2013-04-027

EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND A TWENTY-NINE MONTH SENTENCE FOR A

FIRST TIME FELONY DUI OFFENDER WHO VIOLATED COMMUNITY CONTROL AND

WHO SERVED A SIXTY DAY MANDATORY LOCAL INCARCERATION TERM IS NOT SO

AUTHORIZED AND IS THUS VOID."

{¶ 7} Appellant argues that because he was a first-time felony OVI offender and the

trial court already had sentenced him to a mandatory 60-day term of local incarceration under

R.C. 2929.13(G)(1), the maximum penalty that the trial court could impose on him for

violating his community control was one year of local incarceration. He acknowledges that

the trial court notified him at the time of his original sentencing that if he violated the terms of

his community control, he could be sentenced to 29 months in prison, but he asserts that this

portion of his original sentence was erroneous, too.

{¶ 8} Initially, appellant did not file a direct appeal from the trial court's decision to

resentence him to 29 months in prison for violating the terms of his community control, and

the argument that he is raising on appeal is different from the one he raised in the trial court.

Nevertheless, "[n]o court has the authority to impose a sentence that is contrary to law,"

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, ¶ 23; a motion to correct an unlawful or

illegal sentence is "an appropriate vehicle for raising the claim that a sentence is facially

illegal at any time," id. at ¶ 25; and application of the principles of res judicata and issue

preclusion are disfavored with respect to sentences that do not comply with statutory

mandates. Id. at ¶ 35.

{¶ 9} R.C. 2929.15(B) states in relevant part:

(B)(1) If the conditions of a community control sanction are violated * * *, the sentencing court may impose upon the violator one or more of the following penalties:

***

(c) A prison term on the offender pursuant to section 2929.14 of the -3- Clermont CA2013-04-027

Revised Code.

(2) The prison term, if any, imposed upon a violator pursuant to this division shall be within the range of prison terms available for the offense for which the sanction that was violated was imposed and shall not exceed the prison term specified in the notice provided to the offender at the sentencing hearing pursuant to division (B)(2) of section 2929.19 of the Revised Code.

{¶ 10} In this case, the "offense for which the sanction that was violated was imposed"

was a fourth-degree felony OVI offense. Appellant acknowledges that the 29-month prison

term that the trial court imposed on him for violating the terms of his community control does

not exceed the prison term specified in the notice provided to him at his original sentencing

hearing. The remaining issue before us, then, is whether the 29-month prison sentence is

within the range of prison terms available for a fourth-degree felony OVI offense.

{¶ 11} R.C. 2929.14(A) states in relevant part:

(A) Except as provided in division * * * (B)(4) * * *, if the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a felony elects or is required to impose a prison term on the offender pursuant to this chapter, the court shall impose a definite prison term that shall be one of the following:

(4) For a felony of the fourth degree, the prison term shall be six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen months.

{¶ 12} R.C. 2929.14(B)(4) states in pertinent part:

If the offender is being sentenced for a * * * fourth degree felony OVI offense under division (G)(2) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code, the sentencing court shall impose upon the offender a mandatory prison term in accordance with that division. In addition to the mandatory prison term, if the offender is being sentenced for a fourth degree felony OVI offense, the court, notwithstanding division (A)(4) of this section, may sentence the offender to a definite prison term of not less than six months and not more than thirty months[.] * * *

If the offender is being sentenced for a fourth degree felony OVI offense under division (G)(1) of section 2929.13 of the Revised -4- Clermont CA2013-04-027

Code and the court imposes a mandatory term of local incarceration, the court may impose a prison term as described in division (A)(1) of that section.

{¶ 13} The trial court initially determined that R.C. 2929.14(B)(4) was the controlling

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. McClellan
2020 Ohio 5551 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Black
2016 Ohio 5612 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 Ohio 4867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rabe-ohioctapp-2013.