[Cite as State v. Pratt, 2018-Ohio-1394.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 105791

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

RAHKEBA PRATT

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-17-613197-A 

BEFORE: E.T. Gallagher, J., Kilbane, P.J., and Celebrezze, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 12, 2018 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Mark Stanton 

Cuyahoga County Public Defender 

BY: Paul Kuzmins 

Assistant Public Defender 

Courthouse Square, Suite 200 

310 Lakeside Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Michael C. O’Malley 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Ronni Ducoff 

Mary M. Frey 

Sean Kilbane 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys 

The Justice Center, 8th and 9th Floors 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Rahkeba Pratt (“Pratt”), appeals her sentence and 

claims the following two errors: 

1. The trial court erred in ordering [Pratt] to serve the maximum 180 days 

in jail followed by five years of community control supervision on the same 

count for both Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment. 

2. The trial court erred in ordering [Pratt] to serve the maximum sentence 

where her conduct did not amount to the worst form of the offense and she 

did not have any prior criminal history. 

{¶2} We find merit to the appeal, reverse the trial court’s judgment, and remand 

the case to the trial court for resentencing. 

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶3} Pratt pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor child endangering after 

her live-in boyfriend was charged with sexually assaulting her two daughters, R.W. I and 

R.W. II. The indictment alleged that Pratt’s boyfriend, Michael Bell (“Bell”), 

continually molested the children from August 1, 2015, through June 13, 2016. 

{¶4} In August 2015, Pratt, Bell, and Pratt’s two children were living on East 90th 

Street in Cleveland when Pratt ’s oldest daughter, R.W. II, told her that Bell touched her 

inappropriately. Pratt confronted Bell about the accusation, and Bell denied any 

inappropriate touching. He claimed he innocently touched R.W. II while he was looking 

for bed bugs. The apartment was infested with bed bugs, and Pratt concluded that R.W. 

II mistook Bell’s innocent behavior for something more sinister. However, the parties 
later moved to Tacoma Avenue in Cleveland where R.W. II again told her mother that 

Bell touched her inappropriately. This time, Pratt instructed R.W. II not to tell anyone 

“because we need a place to stay.” 

{¶5} Sometime later, R.W. II was caught stealing money from her maternal aunt. 

When R.W. II’s aunt questioned her about the theft, R.W. II told her aunt about the abuse 

and that her mother told her not to tell anyone because they needed a place to stay. R.W. 

II thought the money might help her mother and improve the situation. 

{¶6} R.W. II’s aunt reported the abuse to the police. The police transported Pratt 

and her daughters to the emergency room at University Hospitals for a sexual assault 

evaluation. According to the police report, R.W. II told Pratt during the drive to the 

hospital “that I have been trying to tell you this mom, but you wouldn’t listen.” 

However, no physical examination was done at the hospital because there had been no 

physical abuse in the last 72 hours. The emergency room personnel referred Pratt to the 

Care Clinic at University Hospitals, which provides services to children suspected of 

being sexually abused. Although Pratt received a packet of information regarding the 

Care Clinic’s services and its address and telephone number, Pratt never took the children 

to the Care Clinic. 

{¶7} Pratt was arrested one month after the abuse was reported to police, and the 

children moved in with their maternal grandmother (“Grandmother”). Grandmother took 

R.W. I to the hospital because she was showing signs of a urinary tract infection. R.W. I, 

who was eight years old, was subsequently diagnosed with trichomonas, a sexually 
transmitted disease. Grandmother informed the court at sentencing that the children 

were both in counseling through the Rape Crisis Center to sort out the trauma they 

endured as a result of Bell’s actions and the lack of trust they experienced from their 

mother, who failed to protect them after she learned of the abuse. 

{¶8} The trial court sentenced Pratt to 180 days in jail on each count of child 

endangering and ordered the jail terms to be served concurrently, followed by a period of 

community control on each count.1

 Pratt now appeals her sentence. 

II. Law and Analysis

{¶9} In the first assignment of error, Pratt argues the trial court erred in ordering 

her to serve 180 days in jail followed by a period of community control supervision. She 

contends this sort of hybrid sentence that combines a maximum term of incarceration with 

a period of community control is contrary to law and that the court should have suspended 

the jail sentence. She cites State v. Aziz-Hakim, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98176, 

2012-Ohio-5890, to support her argument. 

{¶10} Aziz-Hakim was sentenced to 180 days in jail. In addition to the maximum 

jail term provided by law, the sentencing entry stated that Aziz-Hakim was “Banned from 

Walmart” because Aziz-Hakim committed his crimes at Walmart. Id. at ¶ 17. On 

appeal, Aziz-Hakim argued that “while the court could ban him from the store as a 

condition of community control, it could not impose community control where the court 

 1 The trial court sentenced Pratt to five years of community control 

sanctions on the record at the sentencing hearing. However, the sentencing entry 

states that Pratt was sentenced to two years of community control sanctions. 
imposed the maximum jail term for a first-degree misdemeanor with no part of that 

sentence suspended.” Id. This court agreed and remanded the case to the trial court to 

vacate Aziz-Hakim’s sentence. Id. at ¶ 17. 

{¶11} R.C. 2929.25(A)(1) supports the court’s conclusion in Aziz-Hakim. R.C. 

2929.25(A)(1) authorizes hybrid sentences composed of a jail term followed by a period 

of community control sanctions, but only if the trial court suspends “all or a portion of the 

jail term imposed.” R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(b). In other words, a trial court may not require 

a defendant to serve a period of community supervision after serving the maximum jail 

sentence for a misdemeanor. 

{¶12} The trial court in this case ordered Pratt to serve the maximum jail term of 

180 days on each of her child endangering convictions followed by a period of 

community control sanctions, to be served concurrently. Because the trial court did not 

suspend all or a portion of the jail terms imposed, the sentences are contrary to law. 

{¶13} Accordingly, the first assignment of error is sustained. 

{¶14} Having determined that Pratt’s concurrent sentences are contrary to law, the 

second assignment of error, which concerns the propriety of the court’s decision to 

impose maximum jail terms, is moot. 

{¶15} Judgment reversed and case remanded to the trial court for resentencing on 

both counts of child endangering. 

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR