[Cite as State v. Walton, 2013-Ohio-2147.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

WYANDOT COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-12-13 

 v. 

DAVID E. WALTON, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-12-14 

 v. 

DAVID E. WALTON, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeals from Wyandot County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court Nos. 11-CR-0069 and 12-CR-0009 

Judgments Affirmed in Part and Vacated in Part 

Date of Decision: May 28, 2013 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Charles R. Hall, Jr. for Appellant 

Jonathan K. Miller for Appellee 
Case Nos. 16-12-13, 16-12-14 

 

-2- 

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant David E. Walton (“Walton”) brings this appeal 

from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Wyandot County. Walton 

challenges the sentences imposed by the trial court. For the reasons set forth 

below, the judgments are affirmed in part and vacated in part. 

{¶2} On November 22, 2011, the Wyandot County Grand Jury indicted 

Walton on six counts of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor in violation of 

R.C. 2907.04(A), all felonies of the third degree. The matter was assigned trial 

court number 11-CR-0069. On February 22, 2012, the Wyandot County Grand 

Jury indicted Walton on two additional counts of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a 

Minor in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A), felonies of the third degree and two counts 

of Contributing to the Unruliness of a Child in violation of R.C. 2929.24(A)(2), 

misdemeanors of the first degree. This matter was assigned trial court number 12-

CR-0009. The cases were consolidated. Walton entered not guilty pleas to all 

charges. 

{¶3} On April 26, 2012, Walton changed his plea to guilty to one count of 

Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor in case number 11-CR-0069 and one 

count of Contributing to the Unruliness of a Child in case number 12-CR-0009. 

The remaining charges were dismissed. A sentencing hearing was held on 

November 5, 2012. The trial court sentenced Walton to sixty months in prison on 
Case Nos. 16-12-13, 16-12-14 

 

-3- 

the third degree felony and six months in jail for the misdemeanor. The sentences 

were ordered to be served concurrently. In addition, the trial court ordered that 

Walton have no contact with the victim and that he not be alone with any juvenile 

without a responsible adult being present. Walton appeals from this sentence and 

raises the following assignment of error. 

The trial court erred by imposing greater than the minimum 

sentence and/or greater than the minimum sentence range as 

[Walton] had no prior lifetime felonies, had no prior criminal 

history, and was apologetic and remorseful at the time of 

sentencing.

{¶4} Walton’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred by 

imposing the maximum sentence on the third degree felony.1

 Walton bases this 

claim on the fact that he has no prior criminal history and that he showed remorse 

for his offenses. Trial courts have full discretion to impose any sentence with the 

statutory range. State v. Saldana, 3d Dist. No. 12-12-09, 2013-Ohio-1122, ¶20. 

The range of prison sentences authorized for a defendant convicted under R.C. 

2907.04 ranges from twelve to sixty months. R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a). However, 

the trial court must still consider the purposes of felony sentencing as set forth in 

R.C. 2929.11 and be guided by the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 

and R.C. 2929.13 when determining the appropriate sentence. Saldana at ¶20-21. 

 

1

 Walton does not challenge his sentence on the misdemeanor. 
Case Nos. 16-12-13, 16-12-14 

 

-4- 

{¶5} In this case, the trial court sentenced Walton to the maximum sentence 

authorized by statute. In doing so, the trial court indicated at the hearing that it 

had considered the sentencing factors and the purposes of sentencing. 

The Court having considered the information presented at this 

hearing and the record, and now being fully informed of the 

circumstances surrounding the charges, and finding no cause 

which would preclude pronouncement of sentence, finds after 

weighing the factors pertaining to the seriousness of the offenses, 

and whether the defendant is likely recidivate (sic), that the 

offender is not amenable to community control and prison is 

consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. 

The Court looks at the seriousness of this, of these crimes. This 

was a – the one being a sex offense. 

The defendant was a relation of his victim. He had a sexual 

relationship with his victim which he commenced as she was 

entering her teen years. It wasn’t a one-time occurrence; and, 

defendant was 23 old – 23-years older than his victim. 

Defendant groomed his victim and took advantage of his 

relationship with her and her youth to facilitate the offense. 

Defendant snuck into her home, provided her with code names 

and phones to avoid detection. Making the obsession, the 

defendant had, some type of game that may have been intriguing 

and exciting to a child who, because of being immature and 

young, unaware of the potential negative consequences that 

could flow from what the defendant was doing to her. 

Now her family is torn apart. She has suffered extreme, extreme 

harm. She’s been given medication, taken to doctors and 

counseling all because of defendant’s actions. 

There is no trust and she and her family live in fear of you, given 

the impact on the victim and her family. This was a very serious 

offense. 
Case Nos. 16-12-13, 16-12-14 

 

-5- 

Given the deceit and lengths to which the defendant was willing 

to go, the people the defendant was willing to betray, makes you 

a threat primarily to children, children that most adults feel 

should have protection. 

The Court is not seeing genuine remorse. And, the Court also 

noted that there has been nothing shown that the defendant has 

attempted to access treatment to deal with the issues that made 

him believe it was okay to do the actions that gave rise to this 

offense. 

A short prison term would demean the seriousness of the offense 

and the harm caused to the victim and her family. 

Tr. 14-16. The above statements were repeated in the judgment entry. Given 

these statements, it is clear that the trial court did consider the factors set forth in 

R.C. 2929.12 and R.C. 2929.13. 

{¶6} In support of its findings, the trial court had the victim impact 

statements from the child, her father, her mother, and her step-mother. All of the 

victims requested that Walton be given the maximum sentence and stated how his 

actions had impacted their lives in a negative manner. The trial court also has the 

pre-sentence investigation report to review. In this report, Walton made the 

following statements. 

[A] little less than 3 years ago, I started talking to [the victim] 

about things that were going on at her dad’s house, because she 

needed someone to talk to. That was the first of several huge 

mistakes that I made involving [the victim]. * * * I kissed her 

the first time in late April of 2010. The touching started shortly 

after that. Oral sex happened in late June to early July of 2010. 

She said it made her feel weird, so we went back to kissing and 

touching. 
Case Nos. 16-12-13, 16-12-14 

 

-6- 

In the early Spring of 2011, I purchased phones so that she 

would be able to talk to me if she needed to when she was at her 

dad’s I did keep her up texting way past curfew on several 

nights. I also had her out of her house and in my car past 

curfew on one occasion in September, 2011. 

PSI, 8. The recommendation of the author of the PSI was that Walton would 

benefit from counseling, but that his offense warranted “incarceration to protect 

the public and minimize future recidivism.” Id. at 12. Given all of this evidence, 

the trial court’s findings are supported. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in imposing a sentence of 60 months in prison. The assignment of error 

is overruled. 

{¶7} However, this court sua sponte recognizes that the trial court did 

abuse its discretion in imposing a no contact order and ordering Walton to stay 

away from all children. This occurred despite the fact that the trial court 

sentenced Walton to a prison term. This court has previously held that a trial court 

may impose either a prison term or community control sanctions. State v. Dull, 3d 

Dist. No. 13-12-33, 2013-Ohio-1395; State v. Hartman, 3d Dist. No. 15-10-11, 

2012-Ohio-874. “Pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B), community control sanctions and 

prison terms are mutually exclusive and cannot be imposed at the same time on the 

same count of conviction.” Hartman, at ¶7. Trial courts must decide whether it is 

more appropriate to impose prison or community control sanctions and impose 

whichever option is more appropriate. State v. Vlad, 153 Ohio App.3d 74, 2003-
Case Nos. 16-12-13, 16-12-14 

 

-7- 

Ohio-2930 (7th Dist.). A no contact order is a form of community control. State v. 

Miller, 12th Dist. No. CA2010-12-336, 2011-Ohio-3909. Thus, a trial court cannot 

impose both a prison term and a no contact order. Id. 

{¶8} Here, the trial court made the following order. 

Therefore, it is the sentence of the Court that Defendant shall 

serve a basic prison term of sixty (60) months in the custody of 

the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, on the 

felony of the third degree; and a six (6) month jail sentence on 

the first degree misdemeanor. By operation of law, the jail 

sentence shall run concurrently with the prison term at the Ohio 

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The Defendant 

was given credit for one (1) day time served as of November 1, 

2012; Defendant was granted credit for future custody days, 

awaiting transportation to the institution. 

The Court requests the Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction to perform a SORN assessment to determine the 

Defendant’s risk of reoffending. 

The Court further Ordered that Defendant shall have no contact 

with the victim herein or her family, nor be within 500 feet of 

them. 

The Court Ordered that Defendant shall not be alone with any 

juvenile without a responsible adult being present. 

Sentencing Entry, 4. The trial court elected to impose a prison and a jail sentence 

rather than imposing a community control sanction. The trial court may not 

impose both a prison term and a community control sanction. Thus, the following 

portion of the sentencing entry is contrary to law. 
Case Nos. 16-12-13, 16-12-14 

 

-8- 

The Court further Ordered that Defendant shall have no contact 

with the victim herein or her family, nor be within 500 feet of 

them. 

The Court Ordered that Defendant shall not be alone with any 

juvenile without a responsible adult being present. 

This court therefore vacates this portion of the sentence as being unenforceable. 

This does not affect the authority of the Adult Parole Authority to impose similar 

restrictions during Walton’s post-release control. That decision is left to that 

agency. 

{¶9} Having found error prejudicial to the defendant, the judgments of the 

Court of Common Pleas are affirmed in part and vacated in part. 

Judgments Affirmed in Part 

And Vacated in Part 

PRESTON, P.J. and ROGERS, J., concur. 

/jlr