[Cite as State v. Bond, 2016-Ohio-1471.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 103814

STATE OF OHIO

 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

DARNELL BOND

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-15-596915-A 

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and McCormack, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 7, 2016 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

Steve W. Canfil 

55 Public Square, Suite 2100 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Glen Ramdhan 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Justice Center - 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Appellant Darnell Bond appeals from his sentence, claiming the trial court failed to 

accurately notify him of the specific length of the community control sanction imposed, failed to 

satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2929.19(B)(4), and issued a flawed journal entry. The state has 

conceded error. Upon review, we reverse and remand the matter for resentencing and correction 

of the journal entry. 

{¶2} The instant appeal is taken from Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-596915-A. Appellant was 

indicted on three counts. He pled guilty to one count of escape in violation of R.C. 

2921.34(A)(3), and an amended count of attempted menacing by stalking in violation of R.C. 

2923.02 and 2903.211(A)(1). The remaining count of the indictment was nolled. The escape 

charge related to appellant’s failure to comply with the conditions of his community control 

sanctions imposed in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-587375-A. The matter proceeded to a hearing for 

the sentencing in CR-596915 and the violation of community control sanctions in CR-587375. 

{¶3} In sentencing appellant in CR-596915, the trial court placed appellant on probation 

and ordered him to serve 180 days in county jail with credit for time served, but stated the court 

would “keep the case on probation open.” The court reserved the right to place appellant in 

prison for “up to 12 months” for a probation violation. 

{¶4} For appellant’s violation of community control sanctions in CR-587375, the court 

ordered appellant to serve six months in a community-based correctional facility and extended 

the period of his community control sanctions, which had been due to expire on December 31, 

2016, until December 31, 2018. The court warned appellant that if he violated probation in that 

case, he could be placed in prison. 
{¶5} Thereafter, the court provided conflicting statements regarding the length of the 

community control sanction imposed in CR-596915. The court indicated that the probation term 

in CR-596915 would be ending December 30, 2015. However, the court then indicated: “Same 

for both. And the maximum would have been 12/30/19, so he’ll be on probation for a total of 

four years while he’s in the county jail, and while he’s in CBCF, that counts toward his probation 

obligation.” 

{¶6} The resulting journal entry in CR-596915 states in relevant part: 

[Defendant] is sentenced to the Cuyahoga County Jail for a term of 180 day(s). 

Defendant ordered to serve 180 days in county jail for Counts 1 & 2, followed by 

CBCF as ordered in CR 587375. Counts 1 and 2 concurrent; community control 

sanctions until 12/31/2015, to match CR 587375. * * * Violations of conditions 

may result in prison term of 12 months. 

The parties concede that the journal entry for CR-587375 reflects that appellant’s community 

control sanctions were extended to December 30, 2018. 

{¶7} Appellant claims the trial court failed to accurately inform appellant that he would 

be subject to community control sanctions until December 31, 2018, and failed to place in the 

sentencing journal entry an accurate statement of the length of time that appellant was subject to 

community control sanctions. The state concedes that the conflicting statements were confusing 

regarding the length of the community control sanction imposed. 

{¶8} Also, a trial court is required to notify the defendant of the specific prison term that 

may be imposed as a sanction for a violation of a community control sanction in order to comply 

with R.C. 2929.19(B)(4). See State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, 814 

N.E.2d 837, ¶ 19 (interpreting former analogous R.C. 2929.19(B)(5)). 

{¶9} R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) provides as follows: 
If the sentencing court determines at the sentencing hearing that a community 

control sanction should be imposed and the court is not prohibited from imposing 

a community control sanction, the court shall impose a community control 

sanction. The court shall notify the offender that, if the conditions of the sanction 

are violated, if the offender commits a violation of any law, or if the offender 

leaves this state without the permission of the court or the offender’s probation 

officer, the court may impose a longer time under the same sanction, may impose 

a more restrictive sanction, or may impose a prison term on the offender and shall 

indicate the specific prison term that may be imposed as a sanction for the 

violation, as selected by the court from the range of prison terms for the offense 

pursuant to section 2929.14 of the Revised Code. 

(Emphasis added.) The trial court did not comply with the statute in this case. 

{¶10} Upon our review, we sustain the sole assignment of error. The case is remanded 

to the trial court for resentencing. The trial court shall advise appellant of the proper length of 

community control, notify him of the specific prison term that may be imposed if the conditions 

are violated, and correct the journal entry. 

{¶11} Judgment reversed; case remanded. 

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee 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. 

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

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR