[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2021-Ohio-3959.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

JOSEPH CALVIN PATTERSON, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2021-01-004 

O P I N I O N 

11/8/2021 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2020-02-0321 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Willa Concannon, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

Repper-Pagan Law, Ltd., and Christopher Pagan, for appellant. 

 BYRNE, J. 

{¶1} Joseph Patterson appeals from the judgment entry of sentence entered by 

the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons described below, we affirm 

Patterson's sentence. 

I. Factual and Procedural Summary 

{¶2} In June 2020, a Butler County grand jury indicted Patterson on one count of 

aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree felony. Patterson subsequently pleaded 
Butler CA2021-01-004

- 2 - 

guilty to the count. 

{¶3} In the judgment entry of sentence, the court found that Patterson was not 

amenable to community control sanctions. Noting that at the time of the offense Patterson 

was serving or had previously served a prison term and that he violated a term or condition 

of bond by failing to appear for an earlier sentencing date, the court sentenced Patterson 

to 12 months of incarceration. The court additionally specified that this time would be 

served in the Butler County jail pursuant to R.C. 2929.34. 

{¶4} The judgment entry informed Patterson that he could be subject to up to a 

maximum of three years of postrelease control upon his release from incarceration. Finally, 

the court ordered Patterson to pay the "costs of prosecution, supervision and any 

supervision fees permitted pursuant to Revised Code Section 2929.18(A)(4)." 

{¶5} Patterson appeals, raising one assignment of error. 

II. Law and Analysis 

{¶6} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶7} THE TRIAL COURT'S COSTS ORDER WAS UNLAWFUL. 

{¶8} Patterson presents two issues within this assignment of error. First, he argues 

that his sentence was unlawful because, even though the trial court declined to impose 

prison confinement costs, Butler County, as his jailer, could potentially seek to recover from 

him the costs of his confinement. Second, he argues that the court erred by imposing 

supervision costs. 

A. Standard of Review 

{¶9} An appellate court reviews an imposed felony sentence according to R.C. 

2953.08(G)(2). State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 27. R.C. 

2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court can modify or vacate a sentence only if the 

appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the 
Butler CA2021-01-004

- 3 - 

trial court's findings under certain statutes, which are not at issue in this appeal, or that the 

sentence is otherwise contrary to law. 

{¶10} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court 

"considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 

2929.12, properly imposes postrelease control, and sentences the defendant within the 

permissible statutory range." State v. Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-100, 2016-

Ohio-2890, ¶ 8. 

B. Confinement Costs 

{¶11} As Patterson points out, the trial court declined to impose confinement costs 

in the judgment entry of sentence. Patterson does not challenge the decision to not impose 

confinement costs. 

{¶12} Instead, Patterson argues that under separate statutes involving the Targeted 

Community Alternatives to Prison program ("TCAP"), he could potentially be ordered to pay 

Butler County the costs of his confinement.1 He points to R.C. 2929.37(A), which authorizes 

a board of county commissioners, in an agreement with the sheriff, to adopt a policy that 

requires a prisoner of a local detention facility to pay all or part of the costs of confinement 

in that facility. Patterson argues TCAP and R.C. 2929.37(A) expose him to the potential of 

paying confinement costs even where the trial court declined to order him to pay such costs 

in the judgment entry of sentence. He also contends that TCAP provides for a double 

recovery by Butler County, in that the county is paid by the state to confine Patterson, but 

it can later seek to have him pay the costs of his confinement. Finally, he argues that 

recovery of confinement costs under TCAP, which does not require consideration of a 

1. R.C. 2929.34(B)(3)(c) governs TCAP and provides, with certain exceptions, that no person sentenced by 

the court of common pleas of a "voluntary county" to a prison term for a fifth-degree felony shall serve the 

prison term in an institution under the control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, but 

shall instead serve the sentence as a term of confinement in a local facility such as a county jail or communitybased correctional facility. 
Butler CA2021-01-004

- 4 - 

defendant's ability to pay, would be unlawful because the trial court here declined to impose 

confinement costs, and if it had done so it would have been required to consider his ability 

to pay under R.C. 2929.18(A)(5)(a)(ii). In other words, Patterson argues that a potential 

confinement costs order under TCAP would bypass the R.C. 2929.18(A)(5)(a)(ii) 

requirement that the trial court consider a defendant's ability to pay. 

{¶13} However, as Patterson concedes, the sentencing court did not impose 

confinement costs. The sentencing entry from which Patterson appeals is silent on this 

issue. Patterson's concerns regarding potentially being required to pay TCAP confinement 

costs under R.C. 2929.37(A) in the future are entirely speculative and are not based on any 

provision of the sentencing entry. Therefore, Patterson does not present any error in the 

judgment for this court to "review and affirm, modify, or reverse." App.R. 12(A)(1)(a). 

Patterson fails to raise any error in the judgment he is appealing, and this court will not 

address alleged errors occurring outside the judgment appealed. See In re B. Children, 

12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2007-06-077, 2008-Ohio-354, ¶ 26 (declining to address alleged 

errors not addressed by the trial court's judgment); see also Waterford Pointe Condominium 

Assn. v. Reserve Domiciles, Ltd., 9th Dist. Summit No. CV-2015-01-0624, 2019-Ohio-691, 

¶ 33. This issue is not ripe for review. State v. McCarty, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-04-

093, 2007-Ohio-2290, ¶ 15 "'For a cause to be justiciable, there must exist a real 

controversy presenting issues which are ripe for judicial resolution and which will have a 

direct and immediate impact on the parties.'" Id. quoting State v. Stambaugh, 34 Ohio St.3d 

34, 38 (1987) (Douglas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), citing Burger Brewing 

Co. v. Liquor Control Comm., 34 Ohio St.2d 93, 97-98 (1973). 

C. Supervision Costs 

{¶14} Next, Patterson argues that the court erred by ordering him to pay the costs 

of any postrelease control supervision where he was ordered to serve the maximum prison 
Butler CA2021-01-004

- 5 - 

sentence and was not ordered to submit to community control. The state argues that while 

Patterson was not sentenced to community control, his sentence stated that he may be 

subject to postrelease control and that supervision costs in conjunction with Patterson's 

postrelease control are authorized by R.C. 2929.18(A). 

{¶15} Upon review, we agree that supervision costs are authorized in conjunction 

with postrelease control. Under R.C. 2929.18(A), the court imposing sentence upon a 

felony offender may sentence the offender to "any financial sanction or combination of 

financial sanctions authorized under this section * * *." Included among those authorized 

financial sanctions is "any or all of the costs of sanctions incurred by the government." 

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.18(A)(5)(a). The statute goes on to list some examples of 

such sanctions, including the costs of implementing any community control sanction, 

including a supervision fee, the costs of confinement, and the costs related to an 

immobilizing device. R.C. 2929.18(A)(5)(a)(i),(ii), and (iii). However, as stated, these are 

examples. The language in the statute does not preclude a court from imposing other costs 

of sanctions incurred by the government. Supervision fees related to postrelease control 

are within the ambit of "any or all of the costs of sanctions incurred by the government." 

R.C. 2929.18(A). Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not err in imposing 

supervision costs. 

III. Conclusion 

{¶16} Patterson has failed to demonstrate error in the judgment with respect to the 

issue of confinement costs. And the court did not err in imposing the costs of supervision 

in conjunction with postrelease control. The trial court considered the principles and 

purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposed 

postrelease control, and sentenced Patterson within the permissible statutory range. 

Therefore, Patterson's sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. We 
Butler CA2021-01-004

- 6 - 

overrule his sole assignment of error. 

{¶17} Judgment affirmed. 

 PIPER, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.