[Cite as State v. Smith, 2014-Ohio-4548.] 

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Sentence Vacated in Part, and 

Cause Remanded 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 15, 2014 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Bruce Hust, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 vs. 

MARQUIS SMITH, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-130455 

TRIAL NO. B-1206906 

O P I N I O N.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

CUNNINGHAM, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Marquis Smith appeals from the judgment of the 

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of trafficking in drugs, 

aggravated trafficking in drugs, and tampering with evidence. Because the trial court 

was without authority to impose a driver’s license suspension as part of Smith’s 

tampering-with-evidence sentence, we vacate that part of his sentence and remand 

the cause for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment of conviction. 

I. Background Facts 

{¶2} Smith was indicted on seven counts related to criminal activity that 

allegedly took place on October 10 and 11, 2012. After a bench trial, he was found 

guilty of all five counts arising from the October 11 incident, which included several 

drug offenses and the offense of tampering with evidence, but not guilty of the two 

counts arising from the incident on October 10. The trial court merged some of the 

drug counts, resulting in convictions for drug trafficking, aggravated drug trafficking, 

and tampering with evidence, and sentenced Smith accordingly. 

{¶3} With respect to each drug offense, the trial court imposed a five-year 

prison term and a three-year driver’s license suspension. With respect to the 

tampering offense, a violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), the court imposed a 24-month 

term of incarceration and imposed a three-year driver’s license suspension. 

II. Analysis 

{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Smith argues that his tampering-withevidence sentence was contrary to law because the driver’s license suspension was 

not an authorized penalty for the offense. We agree. 

{¶5} “Crimes are statutory, as are the penalties therefor, and the only 

sentence which a trial court may impose is that provided for by statute.” Colegrove 

v. Burns, 175 Ohio St. 437, 438, 195 N.E.2d 811 (1964); see State v. Harris, 132 Ohio 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

St.3d 318, 2012-Ohio-1908, 972 N.E.2d 509, ¶ 15; State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 

92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332, ¶ 23; State v. Purdy, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. 

C-010206, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5036 (Nov. 9, 2001). The trial court was 

authorized, and actually required, to impose driver’s license suspensions as part of 

Smith’s sentences for the trafficking offenses. See R.C. 2925.03(D)(2) and (G). But 

the state concedes, and we agree, that no statute authorized the court to impose a 

driver’s license suspension as part of the tampering-with-evidence sentence. 

{¶6} Thus the trial court, in sentencing Smith for tampering with evidence, 

had no authority to suspend his driver’s license. That part of Smith’s sentence is 

void. Harris at ¶ 14-15, overruling State v. Thomas, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C090716 and C-090463, 2010-Ohio-4856, and State v. Fain, 188 Ohio App.3d 531, 

2010-Ohio-2455, 936 N.E.2d 93 (1st Dist.). Accordingly, we sustain the assignment 

of error. 

III. Conclusion 

{¶7} Because the trial court was without authority to impose a driver’s 

license suspension as part of Smith’s tampering-with-evidence sentence, we vacate 

that part of Smith’s sentence and remand the cause to the trial court to enter a 

judgment of conviction consistent with law and this opinion. In all other respects, 

we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Affirmed in part, sentence vacated in part, and cause remanded. 

HILDEBRANDT and FISCHER, JJ., concur. 

 

Please note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.