[Cite as State v. Weber, 2013-Ohio-1700.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellant 

-vsRICHARD TODD WEBER 

 Defendant-Appellee 

JUDGES: 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case No. 12CA85, 12CA93 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of 

Common Pleas, Case Nos. 2011-CR-407H 

and 2011-CR-636H 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 25, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee 

JAMES J. MAYER, JR. GEORGE R. KEYSER 

PROSECUTING ATRORNEY 44 Park Ave. West, Suite 202 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO Mansfield, Ohio 44902 

By: J. BRANDON PIGG 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

38 South Park Street 

Mansfield, Ohio 44902 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA85, 12CA93 2

Hoffman, P.J. 

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant the state of Ohio appeals the August 10, 2012 Judicial 

Release Order entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Defendantappellee is Richard T. Weber. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} On October 13, 2011, Appellee entered a plea of guilty to three counts of 

forgery, in violation R.C. 2913.31(A)(1), in Richland County Case Number 2011CR0407. 

In exchange for the plea, the State agreed to dismiss two counts and recommend 

community control at sentencing. Via Sentencing Entry of November 10, 2011, the trial 

court sentenced Appellee to six months in prison on each count to run consecutively, all 

suspended. The court sentenced Appellee to thirty-six months of community control, 

informing Appellee a violation of the terms of community control would lead to a prison 

term of 18 months and a five year term of post release control. 

{¶3} Also on October 13, 2011, Appellee entered a plea of guilty to one count 

of theft from the elderly, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), in Richland County Case 

Number 2011CR0636. In exchange for the plea, the State agreed to recommend 

community control at sentencing. Via Sentencing Entry of November 10, 2011, the trial 

court sentenced Appellee to twelve months in prison, suspended. The trial court 

sentenced Appellee to thirty-six months of community control, informing Appellee a 

violation of the terms of his community control would lead to the imposition of a twelve 

month prison term and five years of community control. 

 

1

 A rendition of the underlying facts is unnecessary for our resolution of this appeal. 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA85, 12CA93 3

{¶4} On May 2, 2012, the trial court issued a Community Control Violation 

Journal Entry in both Case Number 2011CR0407 and 2011CR0636, accepting 

Appellee's admission to community control violations and sentencing Appellee to six 

months on each count in Case Number 2011CR0407, to run consecutively, and twelve 

months in Case Number 2011CR0636. The trial court ordered the sentences in 

2011CR0407 and 2011CR0636 to run consecutively. 

{¶5} On June 11, 2012, Appellant filed a motion for judicial release in 

2011CR0407. On July 10, 2012, the State filed a response to the motion. Appellee 

filed a motion for judicial release in Case Number 2011CR0636 on July 31, 2012. Via 

Judicial Release Order of August 10, 2012, the trial court found Appellee was serving a 

non-mandatory prison term of less than 10 years and had served all mandatory portions 

of the sentence; therefore, suspending Appellee's prison term by judicial release to 

community control for a period of two and one-half years. 

{¶6} Appellant the state of Ohio now appeals, assigning as error: 

{¶7} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED DEFENDANTAPPELLEE JUDICIAL RELEASE, AS HE WAS INELIGIBLE FOR JUDICIAL RELEASE 

ACCORDING TO R.C. 2929.20(C)(2).” 

{¶8} R.C. 2929.20(C)(2) reads, 

{¶9} "(C) An eligible offender may file a motion for judicial release with the 

sentencing court within the following applicable periods: 

{¶10} "(1) If the aggregated nonmandatory prison term or terms is less than two 

years, the eligible offender may file the motion not earlier than thirty days after the 

offender is delivered to a state correctional institution or, if the prison term includes a 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA85, 12CA93 4

mandatory prison term or terms, not earlier than thirty days after the expiration of all 

mandatory prison terms. 

{¶11} "(2) If the aggregated nonmandatory prison term or terms is at least two 

years but less than five years, the eligible offender may file the motion not earlier than 

one hundred eighty days after the offender is delivered to a state correctional institution 

or, if the prison term includes a mandatory prison term or terms, not earlier than one 

hundred eighty days after the expiration of all mandatory prison terms. 

{¶12} "(3) If the aggregated nonmandatory prison term or terms is five years, the 

eligible offender may file the motion not earlier than four years after the eligible offender 

is delivered to a state correctional institution or, if the prison term includes a mandatory 

prison term or terms, not earlier than four years after the expiration of all mandatory 

prison terms. 

{¶13} "(4) If the aggregated nonmandatory prison term or terms is more than five 

years but not more than ten years, the eligible offender may file the motion not earlier 

than five years after the eligible offender is delivered to a state correctional institution or, 

if the prison term includes a mandatory prison term or terms, not earlier than five years 

after the expiration of all mandatory prison terms. 

{¶14} "(5) If the aggregated nonmandatory prison term or terms is more than ten 

years, the eligible offender may file the motion not earlier than the later of the date on 

which the offender has served one-half of the offender's stated prison term or the date 

specified in division (C)(4) of this section." 

{¶15} In State v. Norman, 2nd Dist. No. 24445, 2011-Ohio-5969, the Second 

District Court of Appeals held, 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA85, 12CA93 5

{¶16} "R.C. 2929.01(BB)(1) defines 'prison term' to include a stated prison term. 

R.C. 2929.01(FF) defines 'stated prison term' as, among other things, the combination 

of all prison terms imposed by the sentencing court pursuant to R.C. 2929.14. We have 

previously construed the definition of 'stated prison term,' albeit in conjunction with the 

R.C. 2929.20(B)(1) provision for judicial release, as expressly providing that a 

combination of prison terms, such as a series of consecutive sentences, be treated as 

one stated prison term, not as multiple terms. State v. Anderson–Melton (Nov. 9, 2001), 

Montgomery App. No. 18703. That same interpretation applies here, and means that 

Defendant's stated prison term is twenty years, not multiple, separate prison terms 

consisting of eight years, five years, five years, and two years. Defendant will not 

complete serving his sentence in this case until he has served all twenty years." We 

agree with the Norman Court’s analysis. 

{¶17} The trial court sentenced Appellee to six months each on the three forgery 

counts to be served consecutively for a total of eighteen months in prison. The court 

ordered the sentence to run consecutively to Appellee's twelve month sentence on the 

theft charge for a total of thirty months in prison. Accordingly, Appellee's "stated prison 

term" is thirty months in prison. 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA85, 12CA93 6

{¶18} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.20(C)(2) set forth above, Appellee was ineligible for 

judicial release until having served at least 180 days in prison. The August 10, 2012 

judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and the matter remanded to the trial 

court for further proceedings in accordance with the law and this opinion. 

By: Hoffman, P.J. 

Wise, J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ John W. Wise _____________________

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 s/ Craig R. Baldwin ___________________

 HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN 

 
Richland County, Case No. 12CA85, 12CA93 7

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

RICHARD TODD WEBER : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee : Case No. 12CA85 

 For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, the August 10, 2012 

judgment entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the 

matter is remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with the law and 

our Opinion. Costs to Appellee. 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ John W. Wise _____________________

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 s/ Craig R. Baldwin ___________________

 HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN 

 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

RICHARD TODD WEBER : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee : Case No. 12CA93 

 For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, the August 10, 2012 

judgment entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the 

matter is remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with the law and 

our Opinion. Costs to Appellee. 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ John W. Wise _____________________

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 s/ Craig R. Baldwin ___________________

 HON. CRAIG R. BALDWIN