Community sanction

• State v. Ashworth, (Ohio 2012)

Trial court did not err by ordering a prison sentence to run consecutive to any sentence ordered by a Franklin County court as that court’s penalty for violating the community-control sanction that the Franklin County court had earlier imposed. The Franklin County court’s “specific prison term” (R.C. 2929.19(B)(4)) was selected when that court imposed the community-control sanction. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., dissenting.)

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Bobo, (Ohio 2011)

Community control sanction; insufficient evidence; vacate sentence.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Hart, (Ohio 2012)

Unlawful restraint, privilege, knowledge, misdemeanor, felony, speedy trial, tolling, competency, suggestion, evaluation, competency hearing, order, maximum jail term, discharge, combination, highest degree, supersede, free speech, sufficiency, manifest weight, material, interference, liberty, misdemeanor community control sanction, notification, punishment, consequences, no contact, violation, credit, suspend, time served, duration, five years, condition, overbroad, vague, rehabilitation, reasonableness, future criminality, discretion.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Allen, (Ohio 2011)

If a trial court is not required to impose a prison term or community control sanction under Section 2929.13 of the Ohio Revised Code, it has discretion, under Section 2929.12, to impose whatever sentence it determines is the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of felony sentencing.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Sherouse, (Ohio 2011)

In a community control sanction violation hearing, if the trial court erred in permitting a probation officer to testify other than the probation officer who had personal knowledge of the facts, that error was harmless in view of the fact that the defendant admitted the two violations that the trial court found. In appeal from order finding violation, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment, the defendant cannot now complain that the trial court erred in having established one of the conditions of the community control sanction, since the defendant did not appeal from the judgment imposing community control sanctions, which included that condition. Imposition of maximum, one-year sentence for Theft is not an abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Corder, (Ohio 2012)

Criminal law: chain of custody; manifest weight of the evidence; authentication; ineffective assistance of counsel; sentencing; abuse of discretion; contrary to law; organized criminal activity; jail time as part of community control sanction.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Withers, (Ohio 2011)

Maximum sentence, ineffective assistance of counsel, bias or prejudice, Kalish framework, a judge who does not make one of the R.C. 2929.13(b)(1) findings and does not find that community control is a sufficient sanction could still impose a prison term.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Eppinger, (Ohio 2009)

failure to place defendant under control and supervision of probation department as part of community control sanction; failure to advise defendant of consequences of violating community control sanction.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Lenard, (Ohio 2010)

COMMUNITY CONTROL SANCTION; VIOLATION; NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF VIOLATION; ORAL NOTIFICATION AT HEARING; ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Berlingeri, (Ohio 2011)

Trial court did not err by sentencing without a presentence investigation report because the defendant was to be sentenced to a mandatory term of imprisonment, thus foreclosing the possibility of a community control sanction. Trial court did not err by disparate sentences to codefendants because the court could validly take into consideration the level of cooperation shown by codefendants and because the defendant was the only one of the codefendants who had a prior criminal conviction.

• Ohio Supreme Court