[Cite as State v. Riemenschneider , 2020-Ohio-4678.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO Appellee

v. JUSTIN J. RIEMENSCHNEIDER Appellant C.A. No. 29537

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 19 03 0953

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: September 30, 2020

SCHAFER, Judge. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Justin Rieme nschneider, appeals from the j udgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I. {¶2} Riemenschneider was indicted on three charges: abduction, assau lt, and aggravated menacing. A jury found him not guilty of abduction and aggrava ted menacing, but guilty of assault, a first-degree misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to one year of community

control and ordered him to refra in from offensive conduct and o bey all laws. The court indicated that, if he violated his community control conditions, it might “impose a reserved jail term of Six (6) months * * *.” Upon motion, the court stayed the impositio n of its sentence for purposes of a direct appeal. {¶3} Riemenschneider now appeals from his sentence and raises one as signment of error

for this Court’s review.2

II. Assignment of Error The trial court committed reversible and plain error when it se ntenced Mr. Riemenschneider without complying with all the applicable sente ncing statutes. {¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Riemenschneider argues that th e trial court failed to comply with various statutes when sentencing him. We disagr ee. {¶5} Riemenschneider concedes that he failed to object to any aspect of his sentence in the lower court, and thus, forfeited all but plain error. See State v. Coffer , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 18 MA 0077, 2020-Ohio-994, ¶ 7-8. Plain error exists only wher e there is a deviation from a legal rule, that is obvious, and that affected the defendant’s substa ntial rights to the extent that it affected

the outcome of the trial. State v. Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002). “Notice of plain error * * * is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional cir cumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Long , 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶6} When sentencing a misdemeanant, a court may impose a sentence o f (1) one or more community control sanctions, (2) jail, or (3) a combinatio n of jail and community control (i.e., by imposing a jail term, suspending all or part of the j ail term, and placing the misdemeanant on community control). R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(a), (b). If the cou rt directly imposes a sentence of community control, it must inform the misdemeanant of the durat ion of that sanction, R.C. 2929.25(A)(3), and require him to “abide by the law” as a condi tion of his community control, R.C. 2929.25(C)(2). The court also must notify the misdemeanan t that, if he violates any of his community control conditions, the court may increase the durati on of his sanction, impose a more restrictive sanction, or “[i]mpos e a definite jail term from th e range * * * authorized for the offense3

under [R.C.] 2929.24 * * *.” R.C. 2929.25(A)(3)(c). Unlike th e felony sentencing statute, “[t]he misdemeanor statute does not require that the ‘specific’ [jail] term be stated at the hearing.” State v. Bailey , 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 28003, 28004, 28005, 2016-Ohio-4937, ¶ 24. It only requires a notification that “a jail term m ay be imposed for a violation.” Id. {¶7} The trial court sentenced Riemenschneider to one year of commun ity control. It also notified him that, if he violated the conditions of his co mmunity control, it might “impose a reserved jail term of Six (6) m onths * * *.” Riemenschneider a rgues that the trial court erred when it sentenced him to a “reserved jail term.” According to Rieme nschneider, if the court wished to sentence him to a jail term, it had to impose that term and sus pend it before imposing his term of community control. Further, he argues, the court could not sen tence him to six months in jail because that sentence would exceed the 180-day maximum sentence for a first-degree

misdemeanor. See R.C. 2929.24(A)(1). Finally, he argues that his sentence is c ontrary to law because the court failed to notify him, at his sentencing heari ng, that he had to abide by the law

and that he could not leave t he State without permission. See R.C. 2929.25(C)(2). For the foregoing reasons, he asks this Court to reverse his sentence a nd remand the matter for resentencing. {¶8} Contrary to Riemenschneider’s suggestion, the trial court did n ot sentence him to a jail term such that it was required to impose and suspend that term before placing him on community control. See R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(b). The court directly imposed a sentence of oneyear of community control. See R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(a). In doing so, it advised Riemenschneide r that he might be subject to a definite jail term if he violated the conditions of his sentence. See R.C. 2929.25(A)(3)(c). The court, therefore, was not imposing a jail term at the time of sentencing; it was attempting to comply w ith R.C. 2929.25(A)(3)(c)’s notifi cation requirement. Even if the4

court erred by stating that the length of any definite jail ter m it might impose would be six months,

Riemenschneider cannot demonstrat e prejudice as a result of tha t error. See Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d at 27. The court was not required to notify him of a specific jail term. See Bailey , 2016-Ohio4937, at ¶ 24. The court complied with the misde meanor statute ’s notification requirement by informing him that he faced a definite jail term if he violated the conditions of his community

control. See Coffer , 2020-Ohio-994, at ¶ 10-17; State v. Sutton , 162 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio4589, ¶ 11-13 (4th Dist.). Because Riemenschneider has not sho wn that the court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(a), 2929.25(A)(3)(c), or 2925.24(A)(1), his argument to the contrary

lacks merit. {¶9} We also reject Riemenschneider’s argument that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.25(C)(2). That subs ection provides, in relevant part: The sentencing court shall requi re as a condition of any commun ity control sanction that the offender abide by the law and not leave the state with out the permission of the court or the offender’s probation officer. R.C. 2929.25(C)(2). According to Riemenschneider, the court wa s required to orally notify him of the foregoing conditions at his sentencing hearing. Because it did not, he argues, a reversal is

warranted. {¶10} The plain language of R.C. 2929.25(C)(2) does not set forth any oral notification requirement. See State v. Williams , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 14CA010641, 2015-Ohio-3932, ¶ 12 (statutes must be applied according to their plain and unambigu ous language). While R.C. 2929.25(A)(3) outlines the notifica tions that a trial court mus t state “[a]t sentencing,” R.C. 2929.25(C)(2) includes no such language. Compare R.C. 2929.25(A)(3) with 2929.25(C)(2). It merely requires courts to incl ude certain conditions as a part of a misdemeanant’s community

control sanction. See R.C. 2929.25(C)(2). See also State v. Bryant , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5

1041, ¶ 26 (“[A] court must read all statutes relating to the s ame general subject matter together, in a manner that gives proper force and effect to each one.”). There is no statutory requirement that those conditions be stated on the record at the sentencing hearing. Compare R.C. 2929.25(A)(3). {¶11} The trial court specifically advi sed Riemenschneid er at his sen tencing hearing that he would be subject to a variety of penalties if he violated th e conditions of his community control.

See R.C. 2929.25(A)(3). Moreover, its sentencing entry provides t hat he must abide by the rules set by the Adult Probation Depar tment, refrain from offensive c onduct, and obey all laws.

Riemenschneider has not shown th at the court also had to advise him, at his sentencing hearing, that he was required to abide by the law and to notify either t he court or his probation officer if he

intended to leave the state. See App.R. 16(A)(7). Because he has not shown that the court viol ated R.C. 2929.25(C) when sentencing him, we reject his argument to the contrary. Riemenschneider’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

III. {¶12} Riemenschneider’s sole assignme nt of error is overruled. The j udgment of the Summit County Court of Co mmon Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.6

Immediately upon the filing hereof , this document shall consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file s tamped by the Clerk of the Cour t of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to m ake a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

JULIE A. SCHAFER FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, P. J. TEODOSIO, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES: NEIL P. AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTI NO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.