[Cite as State v. Imler, 2020-Ohio-159.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

-vs- : 

 : Case No. 19-CA-21 

 : 19-CA-22 

JACKIE IMLER : 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Court

of Common Pleas, Case Nos. 15-CR134 and 17-CR-219 

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 15, 2020 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: 

 

R. KYLE WITT THOMAS R. ELWING 

FAIRFIELD CO. PROSECUTOR 60 West Columbus Street

CYNTHIA ELLISON Pickerington, OH 43147 

239 West Main, 101 

Lancaster, OH 43130 

 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 19-CA-21, 19-CA-22 2 

Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Jackie Imler appeals from the April 8, 2019 Entries Revoking 

Community Control of the Fairfield Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the state of Ohio. 

{¶2} This is a consolidated appeal of 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 19-CA-21 and 19-

CA-22. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶3} In August 2015, appellant entered guilty pleas to one violation of child 

endangering pursuant to R.C. 2919.22(B)(6), a felony of the third degree [Count I], and 

one count of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs 

pursuant to R.C. 2925.041(A), also a felony of the third degree [Count III]. The matter 

was docketed as Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas case number 15-CR-134. The 

trial court imposed a prison term of 18 months upon Count III, and a 3-year term of 

community control upon Count I, to be served consecutively to the prison term. The trial 

court reserved the authority to impose an additional prison term of 12 months if appellant 

violated the terms of community control. 

{¶4} In November 2015, appellant sought and was granted early judicial release 

from the 18-month prison term. Appellant then began to serve the 3-year term of 

community control. 

{¶5} On May 11, 2017, appellant appeared before the trial court upon allegations 

she violated the terms of community control in case number 15-CR-134, and upon a new 

bill of information for one count of aggravated drug possession pursuant to R.C. 

2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth degree. The latter charge was docketed as 

Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas case number 17-CR-219. 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 19-CA-21, 19-CA-22 3 

{¶6} Appellant admitted violating the terms of community control and entered a 

plea of guilty to the new drug possession charge. In case number 15-CR-134, the trial 

court ordered appellant to serve the balance of the 18-month prison term [Count III]. The 

trial court further ordered that appellant would remain on community control for the 

offense of child endangering [Count I]. 

{¶7} In case number 17-CR-219, the trial court imposed a 3-year term of 

community control to be served consecutively to the sentence in 15-CR-134. The trial 

court ordered the 3-year term of community control to be tolled while appellant was in 

prison and reserved the authority to order an 8-month term of imprisonment for a future 

violation of the terms of community control. 

{¶8} On April 8, 2019, appellant again appeared before the trial court to admit 

violating the terms of community control. The trial court thereupon imposed the reserved 

12-month term [Count I, 15-CR-134] and the reserved 8-month term [17-CR-219] for a 

total prison term of 20 months. 

{¶9} Appellant now appeals from the trial court’s “Entry Revoking Community 

Control” of April 8, 2019 in case number 15-CR-134 and its “Entry Revoking Community 

Control” of April 8, 2019 in case number 17-CR-219. 

{¶10} Appellant raises one assignment of error: 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶11} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING A PRISON TERM AS A 

SANCTION FOR VIOLATING COMMUNITY CONTROL WHERE THE SENTENCE 

PLACING APPELLANT ON COMMUNITY CONTROL SANCTIONS WAS NOT 

AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AND WAS THEREFORE VOID.” 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 19-CA-21, 19-CA-22 4 

ANALYSIS 

{¶12} Appellant argues the trial court erred in imposing a community-control 

sanction on one or more felony counts to be served consecutively to a term of 

imprisonment imposed upon one or more other felony counts. We agree. 

{¶13} We begin by noting that appellee concedes the trial court erred in 

sentencing appellant to a term of community control to be served consecutively to a term 

of imprisonment in case numbers 15-CR-134 and 17-CR-219. 

{¶14} We previously approved sentences in which a trial court imposed 

community control consecutive to a prison term. In State v. Hitchcock, we determined that 

in a case in which a defendant is sentenced on three separate counts, a trial court may 

impose two sixty-month prison terms, consecutive to each other (Counts I and II), and 

consecutive to a term of community control (Count III). 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 16-CA-41, 

2017-Ohio-8255, appeal accepted, 152 Ohio St.3d 1405, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 877. 

See also, State v. Williams, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 17-CA-43, 2018-Ohio-4580, ¶ 

22, motion to certify allowed, 154 Ohio St.3d 1519, 2019-Ohio-768, 118 N.E.3d 257. 

{¶15} The Ohio Supreme Court has now overruled our decision, determining as 

follows in State v. Hitchcock, 157 Ohio St.3d 215, 2019-Ohio-3246, 134 N.E.3d 164, at ¶ 

24: 

 Because no provision of the Revised Code authorizes trial 

courts to impose community-control sanctions on one felony count 

to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed on another 

felony count, we must conclude that trial courts may not do so. We 

accordingly * * * conclude that unless otherwise authorized by 
Fairfield County, Case Nos. 19-CA-21, 19-CA-22 5 

statute, a trial court may not impose community-control sanctions on 

one felony count to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed 

on another felony count. 

{¶16} Therefore, we conclude that in the instant case, the trial court was not 

authorized to impose a term of community control consecutive to a term of imprisonment. 

Appellant’s sentences are reversed and vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial 

court for further proceedings. 

CONCLUSION 

{¶17} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained. We accordingly reverse 

the judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas and remand this case to the 

trial court for resentencing consistent with this opinion. Hitchcock, supra, 2019-Ohio3246 at ¶ 25. 

By: Delaney, J., 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Hoffman, J., concur.