State v. Warnick

2023 Ohio 4480

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 11, 2023
• Docket: 13-23-18
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Warnick, 2023-Ohio-4480.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SENECA COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 13-23-18

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

DYLAN J. WARNICK, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Seneca County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 23-CR-0079

Judgment Reversed

Date of Decision: December 11, 2023

APPEARANCES:

John M. Kahler II for Appellant

Stephanie J. Kiser for Appellee Case No. 13-23-18

WALDICK, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Dylan J. Warnick, brings this appeal from the July

10, 2023, judgment of the Seneca County Common Pleas Court sentencing him to

12 months in prison after he pled guilty to, and was convicted of, Gross Sexual

Imposition. On appeal, Warnick argues that the trial court erred by sentencing him

to prison and imposing a community control sanction on him by ordering that he

have no-contact with the victim. The State agrees with Warnick that the trial court

erred and urges reversal. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the

trial court.

Background

{¶2} Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Warnick pled guilty to Gross

Sexual Imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), a fourth degree felony. The

parties jointly recommended a 12-month prison term, and that prison term was

imposed by the trial court.

{¶3} On July 10, 2023, the trial court filed its final judgment entry

memorializing Warnick’s prison term. As part of the entry, the trial court also

ordered Warnick to have “absolutely NO CONTACT with the victim in this case *

* * in person, by telephone, mail or by third party.”

{¶4} Warnick appeals the trial court’s judgment, asserting the following

assignment of error for our review.

-2- Case No. 13-23-18

Assignment of Error

The trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to both a prison sentence and a community control sanction.

{¶5} Generally, a no-contact order is a community control sanction. State v.

Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 2015-Ohio-2089. The Supreme Court of Ohio has

specifically held that a trial court may not impose a prison sentence on a defendant

and also impose a community control sanction such as a no-contact order on a

defendant for that same offense. Id. at ¶ 32. As the trial court imposed both a prison

term and a community control sanction on Warnick for the same offense, the

judgment of the trial court is reversed under the authority of Anderson with

instructions to vacate the no-contact order.

Conclusion

{¶6} Having found prejudicial error to Warnick in the particulars assigned

and argued, the judgment of the Seneca County Common Pleas Court is reversed.

WILLAMOWSKI and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur

/eks

-3-