[Cite as State v. Taylor, 2012-Ohio-232.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 vs. 

ERIC TAYLOR, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-110295 

TRIAL NO. B-0900555-B 

 

 

 

O P I N I O N.

 

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 25, 2012 

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

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Cornelius Lewis and Michael J. Trapp, for Defendant-Appellant. 

 

 

Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

 

2 

FISCHER, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Eric Taylor appeals the judgment of the Hamilton 

County Court of Common Pleas revoking Taylor’s judicial release and sentencing him 

to six years in prison. Because we determine that the trial court lacked authority to 

increase Taylor’s original sentence, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand 

the matter for resentencing. 

{¶2} In January 2009, Taylor was indicted on three counts of aggravated 

robbery with specifications, three counts of robbery, two counts of having a weapon 

while under a disability, carrying a concealed weapon, and improperly handling a 

firearm in a motor vehicle. Taylor pleaded guilty in November 2009 to three counts 

of robbery, one of which was accompanied by a firearm specification. The trial court 

sentenced Taylor to concurrent two-year terms of incarceration on each of the 

robbery offenses, which were imposed consecutively to a one-year term of 

incarceration on the firearm specification, for an aggregate sentence of three years in 

the department of corrections. 

{¶3} Taylor filed a motion for judicial release pursuant to R.C. 2929.20 in 

June 2010, requesting that the court place him on judicial release once he served his 

mandatory one-year prison term on the firearm specification. The trial court granted 

the motion in December 2010, after holding a hearing where the trial court warned 

Taylor that the court would impose a total of 16 years’ incarceration on his original 

offenses if he violated the community-control sanctions imposed as a condition of his 

release. Taylor indicated at the hearing that he understood the risk. The trial court’s 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

 

3 

entry suspending Taylor’s sentence and placing him on community control also 

reflected the trial court’s admonition. 

{¶4} In March 2011, a probation officer reported that Taylor had violated 

the terms of his community control. The trial court revoked Taylor’s judicial release 

after a hearing on the matter, and imposed concurrent five-year prison sentences on 

each of the robbery offenses, which were made consecutive to a one-year prison 

sentence on the firearm specification, for a total of six years’ imprisonment. Taylor 

has appealed. 

{¶5} In Taylor’s sole assignment of error, he contends that the trial court 

erred by imposing a sentence contrary to law. R.C. 2929.20 allows a sentencing 

court to reduce an eligible offender’s nonmandatory prison term by suspending the 

balance of the offender’s prison term and imposing conditions on the offender’s 

release. State v. McConnell, 143 Ohio App.3d 219, 223, 757 N.E.2d 1167 (3rd 

Dist.2001). The trial court then reserves the right to reimpose the suspended prison 

term if the offender violates a condition of release. Id. 

{¶6} R.C. 2929.20(K) provides, in part: 

If the court grants a motion for judicial release under 

this section, the court shall order the release of the 

eligible offender, shall place the eligible offender under 

an appropriate community control sanction, under 

appropriate conditions, and under the supervision of the 

department of probation serving the court and shall 

reserve the right to reimpose the sentence that it 

reduced if the offender violates the sanction. If the court 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

 

4 

reimposes the reduced sentence, it may do so either 

concurrently with, or consecutive to, any new sentence 

imposed upon the eligible offender as a result of the 

violation that is a new offense. 

{¶7} Generally, a trial court cannot modify a final criminal judgment. State 

v. Carlisle, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2011-Ohio-6553, __ N.E.2d __. The judicial-release 

statute can be viewed as an exception to this general rule, but the statute contains 

parameters. Under R.C. 2929.20, if a court reimposes an offender’s prison sentence 

after revoking judicial release, the court can only reimpose the offender’s original 

sentence with credit for time served. See State v. Terry, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-127, 

2011-Ohio-6666, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Darthard, 10th Dist. Nos. 01AP-1291, 01AP1292, and 01AP-1293, 2002-Ohio-4292, ¶ 11 (“ ‘[T]he trial court’s option in this 

instance with respect to ordering incarceration is limited to the reinstatement, with 

credit for time served, of the sentences that it suspended upon the granting of 

judicial release.’ ”). 

{¶8} Here, Taylor was sentenced originally to three years’ incarceration. 

When the trial court revoked Taylor’s judicial release, the trial court, in effect, 

modified Taylor’s original sentence by imposing a six-year prison term. The trial 

court’s imposition of a greater prison sentence than that which had been suspended 

at the time of the defendant’s release, and even greater than that which had been 

originally imposed, was contrary to R.C. 2929.20 and amounted to prejudicial error. 

See Terry at ¶ 13 (listing Ohio appellate court cases concluding that a trial court 

erred where it revoked judicial release and imposed a greater or lesser prison 

sentence than the remainder of the original sentence imposed). 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

 

5 

{¶9} The state argues that Taylor waived the right to challenge his sentence 

because, at the judicial-release hearing, the trial court had warned Taylor that he 

would be sentenced to 16 years in prison if he violated the terms of his judicial 

release, and Taylor had not objected. Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or 

abandonment of a known right. State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 506, 2007-Ohio4642, 873 N.E.2d 306. The state offers no support for its proposition, nor can we 

locate any. Therefore, we cannot determine that Taylor waived application of R.C. 

2929.2o. 

{¶10} In conclusion, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand 

the matter for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. Moreover, the record 

demonstrates that the judgment entry from which Taylor appealed contains a clerical 

error. The judgment entry indicates that Taylor was sentenced in count one on an 

aggravated-robbery offense; however, our review of the record indicates that count 

one of the indictment had been amended at the time of Taylor’s original sentencing 

from aggravated robbery, a felony of the first degree, to robbery, a third-degree 

felony. Therefore, on remand, the judgment entry should be corrected to reflect the 

amended offense. 

Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 

HILDEBRANDT, P.J., and DINKELACKER, J., concur. 

Please note: 

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