[Cite as State v. Solomon , 2012-Ohio-5755.]

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 7, 2012

Joseph T. Deters , Hamilton County Pros ecuting Attorney, and Scott Heenan , Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Michael Trapp, for Defendant-Appellant.

Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar



### . 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. DEANDREAN SOLOMON, Defendant-Appellant. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO. C-120044 TRIAL NO. B-1103104

O P I N I O N.O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 2 C UNNINGHAM , Judge.



### {¶1} Defendant-appellant Deandrean Solomon appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas convicting him on one count of aggravated possession of drugs, a third-degree felony offense, and one count of possession of cocaine, a fourth-degree felony offense. Solomon contends that the trial court convicted him of higher-degree offe nses than authorized by law. For the reasons that follow, we agree. I. Background Facts 

### {¶2} Solomon was a passenger in an automobile stopped by Springfield Township police officers in May 2011. During a search of the automobile, the police found a bottle of Oxycodone pills and a bag containing crack cocaine on the floor below where Solomon had been sitting. 

### {¶3} The grand jury indicted Solomon for three offenses: aggravated possession of Oxycodone, “in an amount less than bulk,” in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) (count one); aggravated trafficking in Oxycodone, “in an amount that equaled or exceeded the bulk amount but was less than five times the bulk amount,” in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) (count two); and possession of cocaine, in crack cocaine form, “in an amount that equaled or exceeded one gram but was less than five grams,” in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) (count three). 

### {¶4} At a bench trial held in October 2011, the trial court found Solomonguilty on count one, the aggravated-possession-of-Oxycodone offense, as a thirddegree felony, even though the indictment had only charged him with a fifth-degree felony offense based on the qu antity of the drug. And the trial court found him guilty on count three, the po ssession-of-cocaine offense, as a fourth degree-felony offense, which was authorized by the version of R.C. 2925.11 in effect at the time Solomon committed the offense, but not authorized by the amended version of the statute enacted in Am.Sub.H.B. No.86 (“H.B. 86”) that was in effect at the time of Solomon’sO HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 3 trial and sentencing. The court acquitte d Solomon on count two, the aggravatedtrafficking offense. 1 

### {¶5} The trial court sentenced Solomo n to three years of community control with conditions, including that Solomon serve 180 days in the HamiltonCounty Justice Center. The court also imposed a mandatory three-year-driver’slicense suspension. The court notified Solomon that if he violated the terms of his community control, he was subject to im prisonment for three years, the maximum term of imprisonment for a third-degree felony. II. Count One: Aggravated Possession of Oxycodone 

### {¶6} In his first assignment of error, Solomon contends that the trial court committed plain error by entering a co nviction for the aggravated possession of Oxycodone as a third-degree felony offense where the state had indicted him for the aggravated possession of Oxycodone as a fifth-degree felony offense. The state concedes the error, and we agree with both parties that the trial court erred. 

### {¶7} Count one of the indictment ch arged that Solomon had possessed Oxycodone in “an amount less than bulk,” an offense classified as felony of the fifth degree since 2008. R.C. 2925 .11(C)(1)(a). By convicting Solomon of a third-degree felony, the trial court in effect amended the indictment to increase the degree of the charged offense, in viol ation of Crim.R. 7(D). See State v. Davis , 121 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-4537, 903 N.E.2d 609. 

### {¶8} Although Solomon did not bring th e error to the attention of the trial court, the error clearly affected Solo mon’s substantial rights and produced an outcome that would have been otherwise but for the error. See Davis at ¶ 12. The court convicted Solomon on a charge materi ally different from that found by the

1 The court’s first sentencing entry was corrected in a nunc pro tunc entry to include the acquittal on count two.O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 4 grand jury and subjected Solo mon to greater penalties. See id . And we must correct the error to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. See Davis at ¶ 11 and 12. 

### {¶9} Thus, we hold that Solomon has demonstrated plain error. Accordingly, we sustain the first assignment of error.
III. Count Three: Possession of Cocaine 

### {¶10} After Solomon’s indictment, the General Assembly enacted H.B. 86, which implemented changes to Ohio’s cr iminal and juvenile laws. Relevant to this case, H.B. 86 amended several statutes to eliminate the difference between crack and powder cocaine, which are both now includ ed in the definition of “cocaine.” R.C. 2925.01(X). The statutes proscribing three drug offenses involv ing crack and powder cocaine were amended to equalize the amount needed for each level of an offense, and to ultimately equalize th e penalties for offenses involv ing both forms of the drug.
See R.C. 2925.03(C)(4)(c)-(g); R.C. 2925.0 5(A)(3); R.C. 2925.11(C)(4)(b)-(e). 

### {¶11} The amendments to R.C. 2925.11, the statute that criminalizes the possession of drugs, had the effect of lowering the level of the offense charged in count three of Solomon’s indictment from a fourth-degree felony to a fifth-degree felony, subjecting Solomon to reduced sanctions. See former R.C. 2925.11(C)(4)(b) and amended R.C. 2925.11(C)(4)(a). Instead of facing a prison term of six to 18 months, Solomon was subject to a prison te rm of only six to 12 months under the amended version of R.C. 2925.11. H.B. 86 became effective on September 30, 2011, before the trial court se ntenced Solomon. 

### {¶12} In his second assignment of error, Solomon contends that the trial court erred by failing to impose a sentence consistent with the “reduced penalties” enacted by H.B. 86. He argues that because he was sentenced after the effective date of H.B. 86, the provisions of R.C. 1.58(B) re quired the trial court to find him guilty of a “felony of the fifth degree” and to impose a punishment authorized for the lower-O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 5 level offense. According to Solomon, the “level of the offense” is a part of the “penalty” for the offense. 

### {¶13} The state concedes that it would have been contrary to R.C. 1.58(B) for the trial court to senten ce Solomon to a “penalty” that exceeded one authorized for a fifth-degree felony because Solomon was sentenced after the effective date of H.B. 86. But it argues that the trial court correctly found Solomon guilty of a fourthdegree felony offense in accordance with the law in effect when he committed the offense, and that the court committed no error in sentencing Solomon, because the court imposed three years of community co ntrol, an authorized penalty for the offense under the amended version of the statute. 

### {¶14} We note that the record does not demonstrate that trial counsel for Solomon raised this argument below. Accordingly, we review for plain error. A. Legislative Intent 

### {¶15} The first issue before us is whether the General Assembly intended that any of the provisions of amended R.C. 2925.11 apply to offenders like Solomon who committed their offenses before the e ffective date of H.B. 86, but who were sentenced after H.B. 86’s amendments took effect. If so, then we must decide which provisions apply. 1. R.C. 1.58—Ohio’s Savings Clause 

### {¶16} In Ohio, when the General Assembly reenacts, amends, or repeals a criminal statute, the substant ive provisions of the former law apply to all pending prosecutions, but the defendants receive the benefit of a reduced “penalty, forfeiture, or punishment” in the statute as amended, unless the General Assembly expresses another intent. See R.C. 1.58; State v. Rush , 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 697 N.E.2d 634 (1998) (noting and giving effect to the Ge neral Assembly’s stated intent that the amended sentencing provisions of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2 apply only to crimes committed on or after July 1, 1996). See also State v. Lawrence , 74 Ohio St. 38, 44-O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 6 45, 77 N.E. 266 (1906) (interpreting Section 79, the predecessor to R.C. 1.20-1.21, and now R.C. 1.58). This “rule of construction” arises by virtue of Ohio’s savings clause, R.C. 1.58, which provides: (A) The reenactment, amendment, or repeal of a statute does not, except as provided in divi sion (B) of this section: (1) Affect the prior operation of the statute or any action taken thereunder; (2) Affect any validation, cure, right, privilege, obligation, or liability previously acquired, accrued, accorded, or incurred thereunder; (3) Affect any violation thereo f or penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred in resp ect thereto, prior to the amendment or repeal; (4) Affect any investigation, proc eeding, or remedy in respect of any such privilege, ob ligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment; and the investigation, proceeding, or remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced, and the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment imposed, as if the statute had not been repealed or amended. (B) If the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment for any offense is reduced by a reenactment or amendment of a statute, the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, if not already imposed, shall be imposed according to the statute as amended. 

### {¶17} R.C. 1.58 abrogates th e common law, which provided that a crime abated when the criminal statute was repealed by amending legislation. See
Lawrence , 74 Ohio St. at 44, 77 N.E. 266; s ee also Calkins v. State , 14 Ohio St. 222, 230-231 (1863).O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 7 {¶18} Both Solomon and the state conten d that this dispute should be resolved by merely applying R.C. 1.58(B), which the General Assembly referenced in Section 3 of H.B. 86. Solomon’s argument relies on a broad interpretation of R.C. 1.58(B). He considers the degree or level of the offense to be a part of the “penalty, forfeiture, or punishment” for the offense. The state, arguing for a strict construction of R.C. 1.58(B), contends that the degree or level of the offense is not a part of the “penalty, forfeiture, or punishment” for the crime, and that Solomon has confused the classification of the offense with th e penalty or punishment for the offense. a. Solomon’s Argument: Broad Interpretation 

### {¶19} Solomon’s interpretati on of R.C. 1.58(B) is supported by the decision in State v. Collier , 22 Ohio App.3d 25, 488 N.E.2d 887 (3d Dist.1984). See also State v. Coffman , 16 Ohio App.3d 200, 475 N.E.2d 139 (10th Dist.1984). In Collier , the defendant committed two theft offens es in violation of R.C. 2913.02. Collier at 25-26. Before the defendant’s tr ial, but after the commission of the offense, R.C. 2913.02 was amended to raise the monetary threshold for a felony theft offense from $150 to $300. Id . at 26. The defendant argued that the application of the amendment precluded the court from imposing felony sentences because the state alleged only that he had stolen property valued above $150. Id

. 

### {¶20} The Collier court held that the amen dment related only to the penalty imposed and came within th e provisions of R.C. 1.58(B). Id. at 26-27. Therefore, the appellate court required that the “amendment be applied” to the defendant and that “the penalty be imposed according to the amendment.” Id. at 27. 

### {¶21} Significantly, the court further held that “[t]he amending legislation * * * operated to reduce the[] [felony theft] counts to misdemeanor
counts.” Id . at 28. Ultimately, the court revers ed the “felony theft sentences” and remanded “for resentencing the defendant to a misdemeanor sentence for each of the two counts of misdemeanor theft fo r which he was found guilty.” Id . at 28-29.O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 8 {¶22} The Collier court, like Solomon, equated the degree or classification of an offens e with the “penalty, forfeiture, or punishment” for an offense because the amendment modifying the classification of the offense affected the corresponding sanctions. 

### {¶23} In a case involvin g the retroactive applicatio n of certain provisions of H.B. 86, the Fifth Appellate District re cently adopted an interpretation of R.C. 1.58(B) similar to the Collier court’s interpretation. State v. David , 5th Dist. No. 11- CA-110, 2012-Ohio-3984; see also State v. Gillespie , 2012-Ohio-3485, 975 N.E.2d 492 (5th Dist.). 

### {¶24} In David , the defendant was indicted on one count of theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(2), and one count of passing bad checks, in violation of R.C. 2913.11(B), based on her deposit of three checks drawn on a closed bank account into her Park National Bank account and her immediate wi thdrawal of the deposited “funds.” David at ¶ 2-3. The value of the deposited checks totaled $947.50. Id . at ¶ 2. Both counts alleged that the amount at issue involved more than $500 but less than $5,000, and the statutes in effect at the time of David’s in dictment classified both offenses as fifth-degree felonies. Id . at ¶ 3. 

### {¶25} H.B. 86 amended R.C. 2913.02 and R.C. 2913.11 such that a violation of R.C. 2913.02 or R.C. 2913.11 involving an amount below $1000 is a firstdegree misdemeanor offense. Id . at ¶ 4. After the effective date of H.B. 86, David entered a guilty pl ea to both counts . Id. at ¶ 5. The trial court determined that R.C. 1.58(B) applied, and reduced the degree of the offenses. The court convicted David of first-degree misdemeanor offenses, and sentenced her to community control. Id

. 

### {¶26} On appeal, the state argued that the trial court had erred by reducing the charges to misdemeanor offenses, and that R.C. 1.58(B) did not apply.
Id . at ¶ 14. The appellate court disagreed, and held that R.C. 1.58(B) was applicable because (1) H.B. 86 specifically referred to R.C. 1.58(B) and (2 ) the amendments toO HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 9 R.C. 2913.02 and R.C. 2913.11 functioned “to reduce the penalty imposed from a fifth-degree felony to a first-degree misdemeanor based on the valuation threshold.” Id . at ¶ 14. 

### {¶27} The David court, citing the decision in Gillespie, which also involved H.B. 86 and the passing-bad-checks statute, determined that the level of the offense is part of the “penalty” for the of fense, and that the court must reduce the level of the offense when R.C. 1.58(B) pr ovides the defendant with the benefit of a reduction in the sancti on for an offense. David at ¶ 15. b. The State’s Argument 

### {¶28} The state argues that R.C. 1.58(B) only applies to give Solomon the benefit of a reduced penalty, not a reduced le vel of the offense, and that the issue is controlled by State v. Kaplowitz , 100 Ohio St.3d 205, 2003-Ohio-5602, 797 N.E.2d
977. 

### {¶29} In Kaplowitz , the defendant pled guilty to aggravated vehicular assault and the specification that he was dr iving under the influenc e of alcohol at the time of the offense, in violation of R.C. 2903.08. Id. at ¶ 3. After the offense, but before Kaplowitz’s sentencing, the General Assembly amended R.C. 2903.08 to provide for two different offenses. The first, R.C. 2903.08( A)(1), categorizes aggravated vehicular assault while drivin g under the influence as a third-degree felony. The second, R.C. 2903.08(A)(2), ca tegorizes vehicular assault by recklessly causing serious physical harm to another as a fourth-degree felony. Id. at ¶ 25. 

### {¶30} The trial court sentenced Kaplowitz for a violation of R.C. 2903.08(A)(2) under the new law, which was in effect a lesser offense than aggravated vehicular assault with an alcohol specification and provided lesser penalties. Id. at ¶ 4. The Eighth Appellate District reversed, holding that R.C. 1.58(B) does not apply to pr ovide a defendant the benefit of reduced penalties for a reduced-and-not-equivale nt offense, and certified its deci sion as in conflict with theO HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 10 Fifth Appellate District’s holding in State v. Kinder , 140 Ohio App.3d 235, 746 N.E.2d 1205 (5th Dist.2000). State v. Kaplowitz , 8th Dist. No. 2001-L-025, 2002- Ohio-4217. 

### {¶31} In affirming the Eighth District on the certified issue, the Supreme Court held that “R.C. 1.58(B) does not appl y to give a criminal defendant the benefit of a reduced sentence if, by applying it, th e court alters the nature of the offense, including specifications to which the defend ant pled guilty or of which he was found guilty.” Kaplowitz , 97 Ohio St.3d 1480, 2003-Ohio-5602, 797 N.E.2d 977, at syllabus, disapproving State v. Kinder , 140 Ohio App.3d 235, 746 N.E.2d 1205 (5th Dist.2000). 

### {¶32} The certified question in Kaplowitz involved the equivalency of offenses under former and amended statutes for purposes of R.C. 1.58(B), not the meaning of “penalty, sanction, or punishment.” In this case, it is undisputed that the possession of cocaine offense that Solomon was charged with under former R.C. 2925.11 is equivalent to the possession of cocaine offense set forth in the amended version of R.C. 2925.11 that Solomon seeks to be sentenced under. See State v. Limoli , 10th Dist. No. 11AP-924, 2012-Ohio-4502; State v. Gatewood , 2d Dist. No. 2012-CA-12, 2012-Ohio-4181. And the state has taken the position that R.C. 1.58(B) applies but that Solomon should receive only the benefit of a reduced “penalty, forfeiture, or punishment.” Thus, Kaplowitz does not resolve the is sue in this case. 

### {¶33} But the state’s narrow interpre tation of the words “penalty, forfeiture, or punishment” in R.C. 1.58(B) is supported by the Eighth Appellate District’s decision in State v. Steinfurth , 8th Dist. No. 97549, 2012-Ohio-3257. That decision, like David , addressed the application of the amendments to the theft statute enacted in H.B. 86. 

### {¶34} In Steinfurth , the defendant was indicted for felony theft under R.C 2913.02 in June 2011. He later pleaded gu ilty to and was sentenced on one count ofO HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 11 aggravated theft, a fifth-degree felony under the version of R.C. 2913.02 in effect at the time he had committed the offense. 

### {¶35} Before his sentencing hearing, H.B. 86 took effect. H.B. 86 amended R.C. 2913.02 such that the offens e Steinfurth had committed was classified as a first-degree misdemeanor instead of a fifth-degree felony. At sentencing, Steinfurth argued that based on the incorporation of R.C. 1.58(B) into the amended statute, the trial court could convict him of only a first-degree misdemeanor offense. The trial court disagreed and convicted him of a fifth-degree felony offense, but the court imposed the penalty for a first-degree misdemeanor offense. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting Steinfurth’s broad interpretation of R.C. 1.58. The court explained that “1.58 clearly states that a criminal defendant receives the benefit of a reduced penalty, forfeiture, or punishment. Contrary to Steinfurth’s argument, R.C. 1.58 makes no mention of a criminal defendant receiving the benefit of a lesser or reduced offense itself .” (Emphasis in the original.) Id . at ¶ 15; see also State v. Taylor , 9th Dist. No. 26279, 2012-Ohio-5403, ¶ 7, citing State v. Saplak , 8th Dist. No. 97825, 2012-Ohio-4281, ¶ 13.

c. Definition of “Penalty,” Forfeiture,” and “Punishment” in R.C. 1.58(B) 

### {¶36} The parties disagree over the meaning of the terms “penalty,” “forfeiture,” and “punishment” in R.C. 1.58 (B). Our primary objective in construing a statute is to determine and to implement the intent of th e legislature, a goal best achieved by reviewing the language that the General Assembly used, without resorting to other means of interpretation. State v. Chappell , 127 Ohio St.3d 376, 2010-Ohio-5991, 939 N.E.2d 1234, ¶ 16. “Where the meaning of the statute is clear and definite, it must be applied as written.” Id.O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 12 {¶37} The terms “penalty,” “forfeiture,” and “punishment” are not specifically defined in the Revised Code. Th erefore, they must be given their “plain and ordinary meaning[s].” Id. at ¶ 17. 

### {¶38} The term “penalty” has varyin g definitions, including (1) “[p]unishment imposed on a wrongdoer, usually in the form of imprisonment or fine”; (2) “[a]n extra charge against a party who violates a contractual provision;” and (3) “[e]xcessive stipulated damages that a contract purports to impose on a party that breaches.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1168 (8th Ed.2004). The most relevant definition to this case is th e first one—punishment or fine. 

### {¶39} The term “forfeiture” has varying definitions, including (1) “[t]he divestiture of property without compensation;” (2) “[t]he loss of a right, privilege, or property because of a crime * * * ;” (3) “[s]omething (especially money or property) lost or confiscated by this process; a penalty;” and (4) “[a] destruction or deprivation of some estate or right because of the failure to perform some obligation or condition contained in a contract.” Id. at 677. 

### {¶40} Finally, the term “punishment” is defined as (1) “[a] sanction—such as a fine, penalty, confinement, or loss of property, right, or privilege—assessed against a person who has violated the law,” and (2) “[a] negative disciplinary action administered to a minor by a parent.” Id. at 1269-1270. 

### {¶41} Conversely, “degree of crime” is defined as (1) “[a] division or classification of a single crime into se veral grades of guilt, according to the circumstances surrounding the crime’s commission, such as aggravating factors present or the type of injury suffered” and (2) “[a] division of crimes generally, such as felonies or misdemeanors.” Id. at 457. “Degree of crime” does not fall within any of the definitions of “penalty,” “forfeiture,” or “punishment.”O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 13 {¶42} The degree or level of the offense does direct the penalty for the offense. This is demonstrated by amended R.C. 2925.11(C)(4), which provides in part: If the drug involved in the violation is cocaine or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing cocaine, whoever violates division (A) of this sect ion is guilty of possession of cocaine. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided * * *, possession of cocaine is a felony of the fifth degree, and division (B ) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code applies in determining whether to impose a prison term on the offender; (b) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds five grams but is less than ten grams of cocaine, possession of cocaine is a felony of the fourth degree, and di vision (B) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code applies in determining whether to impose a prison term on the offender; (c) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds ten grams but is less than twenty grams of cocaine, possession of cocaine is a felony of the third degree, and, except as otherwise provided in this division, there is a presumption for a prison term for the offense. If possession of cocaine is a felony of the third degree under this division and if the offender two or more times previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a felony drug abus e offense, the court shall impose as a mandatory prison term one of the prison terms prescribed for a felony of the third degree. (Emphasis added.)O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 14 {¶43} The former version of R.C. 2925.11(C)(4) used the word “penalty” in the same manner. 

### {¶44} As demonstrated by R.C. 2925.11(C)(4), the degree or level of the offense generally directs the authorized pena lty and it is included in the judgment that a court formally pronounces after findin g the defendant guilty. But it is not the “penalty.” 

### {¶45} Although it is difficult conceptually to separate the classification of the offense—the level or degree of the offense—from the punishment imposed for the offense the defendant is found guilty of co mmitting, we believe the General Assembly did just that when it chose to use the word s “penalty, forfeiture, or sanction” in R.C. 1.58(B). Thus, we reject Solomon’s argu ment that when R.C. 1.58(B) applies, a defendant sentenced under an amended statute receives the benefit of a lesser or “reduced penalty” that includes the reduced offense provided by the amendment. 

### {¶46} However, R.C. 1.58(B) is only a rule of statutory construction. R.C. 1.58 does not limit the General Assembly’s power to “to define, classify and prescribe punishment for crimes” committed within Oh io and to determine the effective dates of legislative enactments. State v. Rush , 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 57, 697 N.E.2d 634 (1998) quoting State v. Young , 62 Ohio St.2d 370, 392, 406 N.E.2d 499 (1980) (Locher, J., dissenting). Because the General Assembly in H.B. 86 expressed its intent regarding the applicability of the am endments to R.C. 2925.11, R.C. 1.58(B) has limited application.
B. Section 3 of H.B. 86 

### {¶47} In Section 3 of H.B. 86 the General Assembly announced when the courts should apply the am endments to R.C. 2925.11. That section provides, in relevant part, The amendments to section[] * * * 2925.11 of the Revised Code * * * that are made in this act apply to a person who commits anO HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 15 offense involving * * * cocaine * * * on or after the effective date of this act and to a person to whom division (B) of sect ion 1.58 of the Revised Code makes the amendments applicable. The provisions of * * * R.C. 2925 .11 * * * in existence prior to the effective date of this act shall apply to a person upon whom a court imposed sentence prior to the effectiv e date of this act for an offense involving * * * cocaine. The amendments to section[] 2925.11 of the Revised Code * * * that are made in this act do not apply to a person upon whom a court imposed sentence pr ior to the effective date of this act for an offense involving * * * cocaine * * *. 

### {¶48} In determining legislative intent, we look to the face of an act or statute. We must give “significance and effect * * * to every word, phrase, sentence and part thereof, if possible.” State v. Wilson , 77 Ohio St.3d 334, 336-337, 673 N.E.2d 1347 (1997). “It is a basic presum ption in statutory construction that the General Assembly is not presumed to do a vain or useless thing, and that when language is inserted in a stat ute it is inserted to accomplish some definite purpose.” State ex rel. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Euclid , 169 Ohio St. 476, 479, 159 N.E.2d 756 (1959). 

### {¶49} Here, the General Assembly stated in Section 3 of H.B. 86 that the

“ provisions ” of the former act and not the “ amendments” apply to those sentenced before the effective da te of the act, but that the “ amendments” to R.C. 2925.11 apply to a person “to whom division (B) of section 1.58 of the Revised Code makes the amendments applicable.” (Emphasis added.) The General Assembly used the words “provisions” and “amendments” as opposed to “penalty,” “sanction,” or “punishment.” The amended version of R. C. 2925.11 includes the reduction in the degree of the offense.O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 16 {¶50} Our analysis conflicts with the analysis of the Steinfurth court, which reviewed the retroactivity of H.B. 86 amendments to the theft statute. In Section 4 of H.B. 86, the General Assembly used the same language as used in Section 3 to express its intent with respec t to the retroactivity of the theft statute amendments. After reviewing this language, the Steinfurth court concluded that “Steinfurth would not receive the benefit of a reduced sentence except for the inclusion of R.C. 1.58 in H.B. 86” becaus e he committed his offense in May 2011, and not on or after September 30, 2011, the effective date of H.B. 86.” Steinfurth at ¶ 20 (Emphasis added.) Our analysis conflicts because we disagree with this conclusion. 

### {¶51} We believe that without the reference to R.C. 1.58(B) in Section 3 of H.B. 86, offenders such as Solomon who had committed the offense of possession of cocaine in crack cocaine form before September 30, 2011, but were not sentenced until after September 30, 2011, would have received the benefit of the reduced punishment because the General Assembly did not express a contrary intent in the Act and, therefore, the provisions of R.C. 1.58(B) would be read into the statute. 

### {¶52} Our review of the language in Se ction 3 of H.B. 86, including the reference to R.C. 1.58(B), leads us to co nclude that the General Assembly intended that the amended version of the statutes sp ecified in that section, including R.C. 2925.11, shall apply to those who had not been sentenced and who would receive the benefit of a reduced sentence under R.C. 1.58(B). Our reading serves an evident purpose of the H.B. 86 revision: to bring a measure of uniformity to prosecutions involving crack and powder cocaine by el iminating disparities based on divergent classifications of the offenses. Because we disagree with the analysis in Steinfurth
, we decline to follow it. 

### {¶53} Our decision is consistent with th e decision of the Tenth Appellate
District in State v. Limoli , 10th Dist. No. 11AP-924, 2012-Ohio-4502, although our analysis may differ. The Limoli court rejected the state’s argument that none of theO HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 17 ameliatory amendments enacted in H.B. 86, including those to R. C. 2925.11, applied to a defendant who committed the offense of possession of cocaine in crack cocaine form before the effective date of H.B. 86. The Limoli court held that R.C. 1.58(B) applied, and the trial court was required to impose the penalt y for that offense “ ‘according to the statute as amended’ ” by H.B. 86. Id . at ¶ 62. 

### {¶54} In conclusion, although we disagr ee with Solomon’s argument that the “level of the offense” is a part of the “penalty” for the offense, we hold that the trial court erred by not applying the amende d version of R.C. 2925.11 when entering the judgment of conviction. The trial court should have convicted Solomon of possession of drugs under R.C. 2925.11 as amended, reduced the offense to a fifthdegree felony, and imposed an appropriate sanction for a fifth-degree felony. 

### {¶55} While the court imposed a commun ity-control sanction that was authorized for the level of the offense, th e trial court notified Solomon that if he violated the terms of his community control, he was subject to imprisonment for three years. That sanction is not author ized for the commission of a fifth-degree felony offense. Thus, at sentencing, the trial court did not apply the amended version of R.C. 2925.11 as intended by the legislature. This was plain error. See Crim.R. 52(B). Accordingly, we sustain the second assignment of error.
IV. Ineffective-Assistance-of-Counsel Claim 

### {¶56} In his final assignment of error, Solomon argues he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because coun sel failed to inform the trial court that count one of the indictment charged a fifth-degree felony, and not a third-degree felony. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show counsel’s deficient performance and resulting prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley , 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989).O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 18 {¶57} As discussed under the first assignment of error, the grand jury indicted Solomon in co unt one for the aggravated possession of drugs as a fifthdegree felony offense. Counsel should have objected to the trial court’s entry of conviction on a third-degree felony offense because the court in effect impermissibly amended the indictment in contravention of Crim.R. 7(D). As a result, Solomon was convicted of a higher-degree offense and subject to greater penalties. 

### {¶58} Because Solomon has shown trial counsel’s deficient performance and resulting prejudice, we sustain the third assignment of error.
V. Conclusion 

### {¶59} The trial court erred by convicting Solomon of higher-degree offenses than authorized under the relevant statutes, and by imposing sentences that were contrary to law. We reverse the trial court’s judgment, and we remand the case with instructions for the court to modify th e judgments of conviction to reflect that Solomon was convicted of two fifth-degree felony offenses, an d for the court to resentence Solomon accordingly.
VI. Certification of Conflict 

### {¶60} We acknowledge that our disposition of the second assignment of error directly conflicts with the decisions of the Fifth Appellate District in State v. David , 5th Dist. No. 11-CA-110, 2012-Ohio-3984, and State v. Gillespie, 2012-Ohio3485, 975 N.E.2d 492 (C.A. 5th.). We, ther efore, sua sponte certify to the Supreme Court of Ohio, pursuant to the Ohio Cons titution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(4), the following issue for review and final determination: Is the level or the degree of an offense a part of the “penalty” for the offense that must be reduced when R.C. 1.58(B) applies, pursuant to H.B. 86, to provide th e defendant with the benefit of a reduction in the penalty for the offense? 

### {¶61} And we acknowledge that our decision directly conflicts with the decision of the Eighth Appellate District in State v. Steinfurth , 8th Dist. No. 97549,O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 19 2012-Ohio-3257. We, therefore, sua sponte certify to the Supreme Court of Ohio, pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(4), the following issue for final review and determinatio n: Do Sections 3 and 4 of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86 provide that the amended versions of the statutes specifically enumerated in those sections— including the amendments that reduce the degree of the offense itself–apply to those who committed the enumerated offenses before the September 30, 2011 effective date of H.B. 86, but were sentenced after H.B. 86’s effective date? Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

S UNDERMANN , P.J. , concurs. D INKELACKER , J. , concurs in part and dissents in part.
D INKELACKER , J. , concurring in part and dissenting in part. 

### {¶62} While I agree with the majority's resolution of Solomon's first assignment of error, I do not agree with the majority's analysis of R.C. 1.58(B) as it applies to his second assignment. It is from that portion of the opinion that I respectfully dissent. 

### {¶63} I agree with the majority's anal ysis that the terms “penalty,” “forfeiture,” and “punishment”—as those terms are used in R.C. 1.58(B)—do not apply to H.B. 86. Had the opinion stopped at that point, I would have found no fault with the analysis. But the opinion goes on to state that because R.C. 1.58(B) is referenced in H.B. 86, it applies and acts to reduce the level of offense in cases such as this one. This holding is a dramatic expansion of the retros pective application of Ohio’s new sentencing law. I believe that the legislature would not have made such an important legislative de termination in such a nebulous or cryptic manner. 

### {¶64} Simply put, I believe—as does the majority—that the “level of the offense” is not a part of the “penalty for that offense.” Rather than strike out on this new course, I believe that this court would be well-served to follow the path set forth by theO HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS



### 20 Eighth Appellate District in State v. Steinfurth , 8th Dist. No. 97549, 2012-Ohio-3257. That court concluded—utilizing a plain reading of R.C. 1.58—that R.C. 1.58 only requires the trial court to sentence a defendant to the lesser term, but does not require the trial court to reduce the level of the offense. "R.C. 1.58 clearly states that a criminal defendant

receives the benefit of a reduced penalty, forfeiture, or punishment . * * * [It] makes no
mention of a criminal defendant receiving the benefit of a lesser or reduced offense itself * * *." (Emphasis in original) Id. at ¶ 15. 

### {¶65} Because I believe that the majority has read much more into the language of H.B. 86 than the legislature intended, I must dissent from that portion of the majority's opinion. I would hold that, wh ile Solomon is entitled to a reduction in penalty, he is not entitled to a reduction in the level of his offense. I concur with the majority opinion in all other respects.

Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.