Title: State v. Roberts

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State v. Roberts, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5800.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2009-OHIO-5800 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ROBERTS, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State v. Roberts, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5800.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment reversed — Appellant ordered released from custody. 
(No. 2009-0299 — Submitted November 3, 2009 — Decided November 5, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-080571,  
180 Ohio App.3d 216, 2008-Ohio-6827. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Lynn Roberts, was convicted of possession of heroin 
and trafficking in heroin.  On August 29, 2006, appellant was sentenced to a five-
year sentence for trafficking and 18 months for possession, the sentences to be 
served concurrently.  Appellant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals on 
September 8, 2006.  While his appeal was pending, the Department of Corrections 
and Rehabilitation (“department”) determined that appellant was a good candidate 
for placement in an intensive program prison (“IPP”) in lieu of serving the 
sentence ordered by the court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} In order to place appellant in IPP, the department was required to 
inform the sentencing court of its recommendation.  R.C. 5120.032(B)(1)(a). That 
requirement puts the court on notice and gives the court the opportunity to “veto” 
the placement in IPP.  Id.  If the court takes no action after ten days, the 
department may proceed with placement in IPP.  Id. 
{¶ 3} The department faxed the notice of appellant’s recommended 
placement to the sentencing court.  The confirmation of this fax is contained in 
the record.  After receiving no response from the court, the department placed 
appellant in the IPP program.  Appellant successfully completed IPP on July 18, 
2007, and was released. 
{¶ 4} On September 21, 2007, the court of appeals sua sponte held that 
the trial court had failed to merge the two convictions for sentencing purposes and 
remanded the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.  State v. 
Roberts, Hamilton App. No. C-060756, 2007-Ohio-4882, ¶ 9-10.  Accordingly, 
the trial court ordered the department to produce appellant for a new sentencing 
hearing.  However, appellant had completed IPP and had been released. 
{¶ 5} Appellant moved to dismiss the resentencing, but the trial court 
denied his motion.  The trial court determined that the department had not 
properly given notice of the proposed IPP placement and entered a new sentence 
of five years.  The trial court ordered appellant to serve the prison sentence, 
allowing credit for time served.  On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the trial 
court’s sentence. 
{¶ 6} R.C. 5120.032(B)(1)(a) provides:  “If the prisoner is suited for an 
intensive program prison, at least three weeks prior to placing the prisoner in the 
prison, the department shall notify the sentencing court of the proposed placement 
of the prisoner in the intensive program prison and shall include with the notice a 
brief description of the placement. The court shall have ten days from receipt of 
the notice to disapprove the placement. If the sentencing court disapproves the 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
placement, the department shall not proceed with it. If the sentencing court does 
not timely disapprove of the placement, the department may proceed with plans 
for it.” 
{¶ 7} Following oral argument and our review of the record and the 
briefs, we conclude that the state has failed to prove that the sentencing court 
never received notice of the intended placement of appellant in an intensive 
program prison.  Having received no objection from the sentencing court, the 
department was authorized to place appellant in an intensive program prison and 
thereafter to release him consistent with R.C. 5120.032(B)(1)(b). Therefore, we 
reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and order appellant’s immediate 
release. 
Judgment reversed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. 
Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
Louis F. Strigari, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Robert R. 
Hastings Jr., Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Katherine A. Szudy, Assistant 
Public Defender, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Public Defender. 
______________________