[Cite as State v. Mavroudis, 2016-Ohio-894.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

VS. 

DANIEL MAVROUDIS 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 15 MA 0146 

OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Court of Common 

Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio 

Case No. 2013 CR 1325 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and remanded. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee Attorney Paul Gains 

Mahoning County Prosecutor 

Attorney Ralph Rivera 

Assistant Prosecutor 

21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

For Defendant-Appellant Attorney Edward Czopur 

42 North Phelps Street 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Carol Ann Robb 

 

 

 Dated: March 4, 2016 
[Cite as State v. Mavroudis, 2016-Ohio-894.]

DeGENARO, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Daniel Mavroudis, appeals the July 9, 2015 

judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas in which he was 

sentenced to two years of prison for what the trial court referred to as a probation 

violation of a previously imposed community control sanction. On appeal, Mavroudis 

asserts that the trial court erred in sentencing him to two years incarceration. The 

State concedes error. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is 

reversed and the case remanded with instructions to the trial court to vacate 

Mavroudis' sentence and issue an order discharging him from prison. 

{¶2} On May 1, 2014, Mavroudis pled guilty to Receiving Stolen Property, 

R.C. 2913.51(A)(C), and Breaking and Entering, R.C. 2911.13(A)(C), both fifth 

degree felonies. Pursuant to a Rule 11 agreement the State agreed to stand silent 

regarding a sentence recommendation. 

{¶3} At the May 22, 2014 sentencing hearing, the trial court initially 

sentenced Mavroudis to one year on the receiving stolen property count and one 

year on the breaking and entering count, to be served consecutively, for a total twoyear term of incarceration. The trial court then concluded the proceedings. For 

reasons not apparent from the record, approximately 10 minutes later the trial court 

went back on the record and recalled the case for a continuation of the sentencing 

hearing. The court subsequently suspended the imposition of the sentence that was 

previously given. The trial court placed Mavroudis on two years of community control 

and also ordered him to serve five consecutive weekends in the Mahoning County 

Jail. 

{¶4} The May 27, 2014 sentencing entry did not accurately relay the 

sentence that had been imposed by the trial court during the hearing. Although 

Mavroudis was placed on community control during the hearing, the judgment entry 

makes no mention of it. Further, the trial court noted in the entry that the one year 

term on the receiving count was ordered concurrent to the breaking and entering 

count as opposed to consecutive which the court had ordered at the sentencing 

hearing. Contradictorily, the trial court suspended those sentences and ordered 
- 2 - 

Mavroudis to serve five consecutive weekends in the county jail. 

{¶5} On July 2, 2015, Mavroudis stipulated to a probation violation. At the 

probation violation hearing the prosecutor stated that the trial court ordered the two 

previously suspended prison terms to be served consecutively, not concurrently as 

the entry stated. The State asked the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry to 

correct this error. When the trial court asked whether the original sentencing judge 

made the appropriate consecutive sentencing findings, the prosecutor stated he 

believed so. 

{¶6} The trial court made no findings relative to consecutive sentences at 

either the May 2014 hearing or the July 2015 hearing. The trial court's July 

sentencing entry made the finding that Mavroudis had been previously sentenced to 

a two year community control sanction and that he stipulated to the violation. The 

entry then imposed a twelve month prison term for each count to be served 

consecutively, followed by an optional period of three years of post-release control. 

{¶7} This timely appeal followed. The State concedes error and contends the 

original sentence imposed in May of 2014 is void, but requests remand for a de novo 

resentencing hearing. 

{¶8} Mavroudis asserts in his three assignments of error: 

 The trial court failed to specifically advise Appellant of the 

sentence that he would face if he violated the terms of community 

control thereby depriving itself of the ability to later impose a prison 

term and making void the probation violation sentence. 

 Appellant was denied due process of law as the trial court was 

without jurisdiction to issue a nunc pro tunc order relative to a hearing 

that it did not conduct and on an issue that is not a clerical mistake 

thereby invalidating the consecutive nature of Appellant's sentence. 

 The sentence imposed against Appellant was in violation of 
- 3 - 

2929.14(C)(4), contrary to law and an abuse of discretion as the trial 

court did not make the necessary findings before imposing consecutive 

sentences. 

{¶9} This Court is currently split as to the standard of review to apply in 

felony sentencing cases. See State v. Hill, 7th Dist. No. 13 MA 1, 2014–Ohio–919, 

which applied the two-part test set forth in the plurality opinion in State v. Kalish, 120 

Ohio St.3d 23, 2008–Ohio–4912, 896 N.E.2d 124, and State v. Wellington, 7th Dist. 

No. 14 MA 115, 2015–Ohio–1359, which applied R.C. 2953.08(G) and limiting 

appellate review of felony sentences to determining whether they are clearly and 

convincingly contrary to law. The issue is currently before the Ohio Supreme Court. 

State v. Marcum, 141 Ohio St.3d 1453, 2015–Ohio–239, 23 N.E.3d 1453. 

Regardless of which standard of review is applied here, the outcome is the same. 

{¶10} In State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004–Ohio–4746, 814 N.E.2d 

837, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that where a community control sanction is 

imposed the trial court "must, at the time of sentencing, notify the offender of the 

specific prison term that may be imposed for a violation of the conditions of the 

sanction, as a prerequisite to imposing a prison term on the offender for a 

subsequent violation." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. This notification must 

also be contained in the sentencing entry. State v. Grega, 8th Dist. No. 103508, 

2016–Ohio–222, ¶12 (internal citations omitted). When no notice is given of the 

potential prison term if community control sanctions are violated, a prison term may 

not be imposed for violation of the conditions. Brooks at ¶ 8. 

{¶11} Here, the trial court's original sentencing entry imposed a one year 

prison term on each count to be served concurrently, with those sentences 

suspended. There was no language placing Mavroudis on community control nor 

indicating a specific term of incarceration should Mavroudis violate community 

control. 

{¶12} In Grega the defendant had not been given an advisement that he 

would be subject to incarceration should he violate community control sanctions. 
- 4 - 

Grega at ¶ 8. The State conceded error. As a result, the Eighth District held that the 

trial court could not impose any further community control sanctions, reversed the 

trial court, vacated Grega's sentence, and discharged him. 

{¶13} Such is the case here. “It is well established that a court speaks through 

its journal entries.” State v. Hottenstein, 2d Dist. No. 2014-CA-113, 2015–Ohio–4787, 

¶27. “Neither the parties nor a reviewing court should have to review the trial court 

record to determine the court's intentions. Rather, the entry must reflect the trial 

court's action in clear and succinct terms.” Id. citing Infinite Security Solutions, L.L.C. 

v. Karam Properties, II, Ltd., 143 Ohio St.3d 346, 2015-Ohio-1101, 37 N.E.3d 1211, 

at ¶ 29. Although Mavroudis was placed on community control during the hearing, the 

trial court failed to advise Mavroudis of the consequences if he violated community 

control; moreover, the sentencing entry makes no mention of community control. 

Thus the trial court erred in imposing a prison term for Mavroudis' community control 

violation. 

{¶14} Accordingly, consistent with the relief the Eighth District granted the 

defendant in Grega, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case 

remanded with instructions to the trial court to vacate Mavroudis' sentence and issue 

an order discharging him from prison. 

Donofrio, P. J., concurs. 

Robb, J., concurs.