[Cite as State v. Clark, 2018-Ohio-1155.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsJESSIE CLARK 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

Case No. CT2017-0032 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court 

of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2017-0003 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 28, 2018 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

D. MICHAEL HADDOX ERIC J. ALLEN 

Prosecuting Attorney The Law Offices of Eric J. Allen, Ltd. 

Muskingum County, Ohio 4605 Morse Rd., Suite 201 

 Gahanna, Ohio 43230 

By: GERALD V. ANDERSON II 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Muskingum County, Ohio 

27 North Fifth Street, PO Box 189 

Zanesville, Ohio 43701 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0032 2

Hoffman, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Jessie L. Clark appeals the judgment entered by the Muskingum 

County Common Pleas Court convicting him of receiving stolen property (R.C. 

2913.51(A)) and attempt to have a weapon while under disability (R.C. 2923.02(A) and 

R.C. 2923.13(A)(3)), both felonies of the fourth degree, and revoking his post-release 

control in a separate case. Appellee is the state of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} On October 28, 2016, Appellant offered to take a gun and sell it for another 

person, knowing the gun was stolen. Appellant had a prior conviction for trafficking in 

drugs, a felony of the fourth degree, which resulted in him being placed under disability 

from owning or possessing a firearm. 

{¶3} Appellant was indicted on one count of receiving stolen property and one 

count of attempt to have a weapon under disability by the Muskingum County grand jury 

on January 4, 2017. He entered a guilty plea to both charges and was sentenced to 

eighteen months incarceration on each conviction, to be served concurrently. 

{¶4} At the time of the commission of the offenses, Appellant was on postrelease control from Muskingum County Case No. CR2015-0423. During the plea and 

sentencing hearing, the trial court stated: 

The Court is going to terminate your PRC. The reason being, they 

do the administrative to make it look like you did not commit a new offense 

because you went in on a rule violation. You did commit a new offense 

while on post-release control. Statistically they’re trying to make 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0032 3

themselves look better, and they use that against other departments who 

don’t do that type of thing in regards to funding. It’s not right. 

Therefore, the Court is terminating your post-release control and 

ordering that the time you have left on it be imposed. You got the credit of 

the six months that you would have gotten towards this sentence; therefore, 

it’s the same amount of time one way or the other, but I am terminating and 

imposing what you have left, which would be to whatever it is in May. 

Tr. 15-16. 

{¶5} With regards to revocation of post-release control and the accompanying 

sanction, the sentencing entry recites: 

The Court further finds that the Defendant was on post release 

control at the time of the commission of the offenses herein in the 

Muskingum County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2015-

0243. Pursuant to ORC §2929.141, this Court terminates the Defendant’s 

period of post release control and hereby ORDERS that the Defendant 

serve the remainder of his post release control; said sentence shall be 

served mandatory consecutive to the sentence imposed herein. 

Judgment Entry, April 20, 2017. 

{¶6} From this judgment Appellant prosecutes the instant appeal, assigning as 

error: 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0032 4

THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO INFORM THE APPELLANT OF THE 

LENGTH OF HIS SANCTION EITHER ON THE RECORD OR IN THE 

JUDGMENT ENTRY. 

{¶7} Appellant argues the court erred in failing to specify the length of his 

sanction for violation of post-release control. The State argues in rebuttal the term will be 

calculated by the Adult Parole Authority. 

{¶8} R.C. 2929.141(A)(1) provides for the termination of post-release control 

upon commission of a new felony as follows: 

(A) Upon the conviction of or plea of guilty to a felony by a person on 

post-release control at the time of the commission of the felony, the court 

may terminate the term of post-release control, and the court may do either 

of the following regardless of whether the sentencing court or another court 

of this state imposed the original prison term for which the person is on postrelease control: 

(1) In addition to any prison term for the new felony, impose a prison 

term for the post-release control violation. The maximum prison term for the 

violation shall be the greater of twelve months or the period of post-release 

control for the earlier felony minus any time the person has spent under 

post-release control for the earlier felony. In all cases, any prison term 

imposed for the violation shall be reduced by any prison term that is 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0032 5

administratively imposed by the parole board as a post-release control 

sanction. A prison term imposed for the violation shall be served 

consecutively to any prison term imposed for the new felony. The imposition 

of a prison term for the post-release control violation shall terminate the 

period of post-release control for the earlier felony. 

{¶9} Only the trial court itself may make the decision to sentence for a postrelease control violation. State v. Branham, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2013–CA–49, 2014–Ohio–

5067. Once the court decides to impose a sentence for such a violation, it is bound by 

R.C. 2929.141 when determining the time to be served. Id. 

{¶10} While the statute gives the court discretion to decide whether or not to 

sentence for a post-release control violation, once the court has decided to impose a 

sentence, that sentence is determined by statute. The trial court specifically stated the 

sentence would be the remainder of his post-release control. That specific sentence is 

calculable to a certainty from information within the possession of the Adult Parole 

Authority, while such information may not be readily available to the sentencing court. 

Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s failure to include the exact sentence in the 

sentencing entry, as the sentence may be administratively determined by the Adult Parole 

Authority as set forth by R.C. 2929.141(A)(1). 

{¶11} The assignment of error is overruled. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0032 6

{¶12} The judgment of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Wise, Earle, J. concur