[Cite as State v. Heidrick, 2012-Ohio-1739.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

 No. 96822 

STATE OF OHIO 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

JOSEPH P. HEIDRICK

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-546366 

BEFORE: Kilbane, J., Boyle, P.J., and E. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 19, 2012
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Timothy Young 

State of Ohio Public Defender 

Stephen P. Hardwick 

Assistant Public Defender 

250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

Robert L. Tobik 

Cuyahoga County Public Defender 

Cullen Sweeney 

Assistant Public Defender 

310 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

Mark J. Mahoney 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center - 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.: 

{¶1} In this appeal, defendant-appellant, Joseph Heidrick, challenges the 

sentence imposed following his convictions for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and 

corrupting another with drugs. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 

{¶2} On January 28, 2011, 31-year-old Joseph Heidrick was indicted pursuant to a 

four-count indictment. Defendant was charged with importuning involving a 13-year-old 

girl; unlawful sexual conduct with a 13-year-old girl; corrupting another with drugs; and 

possessing criminal tools, with forfeiture specifications. On March 21, 2011, defendant 

pled guilty to the charges of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and corrupting another 

with drugs, and the remaining charges were nolled. 

{¶3} On April 27, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to five years of 

imprisonment, with five years of postrelease control supervision on the charge of 

unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and one year of community control sanctions on the 

charge of corrupting another with drugs. The trial court further ordered: 

Community control to commence upon release from prison. 

* * * It is therefore ordered that defendant is sentenced to 1 

year(s) of community control, under the supervision of the Adult 

Probation Department * * *.

{¶4} Defendant appeals, assigning the following error for our review: 

The trial court erred by running Mr. Heidrick’s community 

control sanction consecutively to his prison term. 

{¶5} Within this assignment of error, defendant maintains that the trial court had 

no authority to sentence him to serve a term of community control sanctions consecutive 
to a prison term because such sentence interferes with the Adult Parole Authority’s 

supervision of him following his release from prison. 

{¶6} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), our review is limited to determining if 

there is “clear and convincing evidence to show that the record does not support the 

sentencing court’s [action].” See also State v. Ramsey, 6th Dist. No. WD-04-004, 

2004-Ohio-5677. 

{¶7} We further note that R.C. 2929.13(A) states, in pertinent part, as follows: 

[A] court that imposes a sentence upon an offender for a felony may 

impose any sanction or combination of sanctions on the offender that 

are provided in sections 2929.14 to 2929.18 of the Revised Code.

{¶8} This code section provides a trial court with discretion to impose a prison 

term for one offense and community control sanctions for a separate offense. State v. 

Randolph, 12th Dist. No. CA2003-10-262, 2004-Ohio-3350, ¶ 6-7; State v. Aitkens, 8th 

Dist. Nos. 79851 and 79929, 2002-Ohio-1080, at 2; State v. Molina, 8th Dist. No. 83166, 

2004-Ohio-1110, ¶ 10. The trial court may also order that the sentence of community 

control be served consecutively to the prison term, i.e., begin upon the accused’s release 

from prison. Ramsey, 6th Dist. No. WD-04-004, 2004-Ohio-5677, at ¶ 4; State v. 

Kinder, 5th Dist. No. 03CAA12075, 2004-Ohio-4340, at ¶ 31. 

{¶9} As explained in Ramsey: 

This code section has been applied to mean a blended sentence is 

possible. * * * A blended sentence of this type is proper when it is 

imposed to be served consecutively. State v. Kinder * * *. Such a 

sentence is not inconsistent with R.C. 2929.13(B)(2), which provides 

guidance to the sentencing court for the choice of prison or control 

sanctions for a fourth or fifth degree felony. State v. Aitkens, * * *. 
Nothing in the sentencing guidelines appears to prohibit this type of 

blended sentence. State v. Meredith, 4th Dist. No. 02CA5, 

2002-Ohio-4508, at ¶ 13. Accord, State v. Gray (June 30, 2000), 2d 

Dist. No. 99-CA-103.

{¶10} Similarly, in Aitkens, this court explained: 

Although Aitkens argues that all four cases involved the forgery 

of checks, depending on the circumstances of each case the court could 

have found community control sanctions appropriate for two cases and 

prison terms appropriate for the other two, as R.C. 2929.13(A) allows 

this kind of disposition and is determinative of this appeal. 

* * * 

That is exactly what the court did in this case; the court imposed 

a combination of sanctions on Aitkens including prison terms pursuant 

to R.C. 2929.14 and community control sanctions pursuant to R.C. 

2929.15. R.C. 2929.13(A) specifically authorizes a court to exercise its 

discretion in sentencing an offender to any sanction or combination of 

sanctions provided for by law.

See also State v. Marks, 8th Dist. No. 92548, 2009-Ohio-6306, ¶ 13. 

{¶11} Applying the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court acted within its 

discretion and in accordance with the law in imposing a sentence of community control 

consecutively to a term of imprisonment. 

{¶12} Further, although defendant cites to R.C. 2967.29 in support of his 

argument, nothing in this code provision precludes the imposition of a blended sentence. 

The assignment of error is without merit. 

{¶13} Judgment affirmed. 
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant 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. The defendant’s convictions having 

been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. 

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

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR