[Cite as Middleburg Hts. v. Kneip, 2017-Ohio-469.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 104565

CITY OF MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

ERIK R. KNEIP

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT:

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Berea Municipal Court 

Case No. 13 TRC 00165 

BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Keough, A.J., and Jones, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 9, 2017 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Mark S. Ondrejech 

The Ondrejech Law Firm, L.L.C. 

19300 Detroit Road, Suite 202 

Rocky River, Ohio 44116 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Peter H. Hall 

City of Middleburg Heights 

Director of Law 

15700 E. Bagley Road 

Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130 

Megan M. Matthews 

City of Berea 

Assistant Director of Law 

11 Berea Commons 

Berea, Ohio 44017 
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.: 

{¶1} Appellant, Erik R. Kneip, appeals the trial court’s imposition of a 20-day jail 

sentence for violations of provisions of community control. Appellant argues that the 

trial court no longer had authority over him after the period of community control ended, 

and the court did not properly inform him of the consequences of violating community 

control such that a jail term could be imposed. After a thorough review of the record and 

law, this court determines that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over appellant, 

terminates any existing community control in this case, and reverses the order of the trial 

court sentencing appellant to a jail term. 

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} Appellant was arrested for and pled no contest to operating a vehicle while 

under the influence of alcohol, a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). This was 

appellant’s second such conviction. At the sentencing hearing conducted on July 17, 

2013, appellant was sentenced to two years of community control, among other things. 

{¶3} In August of that same year, appellant was called before the court on 

allegations that he used something to circumvent the interlock device attached to his car 

that prevented him from driving after consuming alcohol. As a result, the court found 

that he had violated terms of the use of the interlock device and imposed a more onerous 

testing regime, including the use of a continuous alcohol monitoring device and required 

a video-enabled interlock device to prevent further tampering. The court did not extend 
the period of community control at this hearing. 

{¶4} Later hearings in 2014 resulted in further modifications to appellant’s 

monitoring regime, but did not result in the extension of the term of community control. 

At the time of July 17, 2015, the natural expiration of appellant’s term of community 

control, several violation notices had been filed with the court but a hearing on those 

alleged violations had not been held. The court held a violation hearing on January 29, 

2016 on the alleged violations of the terms of community control at numerous times in 

2015. After denying appellant’s motion to terminate community control, the court 

dismissed the violation notices from most of 2015 and set a hearing date for notices of 

violation that occurred after December 1, 2015. At the April 22, 2016 hearing, the court 

determined that appellant had violated the terms of his community control and ordered 

him to serve 20 days in jail over appellant’s objection that the court lacked any authority 

over him. The court also ordered appellant’s community control to be terminated after 

his release from jail. 

{¶5} Appellant now appeals from that order and assigns two errors for review: 

I. The Berea Municipal [Court] erred [when] imposing a sanction of 20 

days in jail upon appellant for conduct that took place after his period of 

community control expired. 

II. The Berea Municipal Court does not have authority to impose a jail 

sentence on appellant for alleged violations of community control because it 

did not advise [appellant] that he could be subject to a jail term, an 

increased term of community control or a more restrictive sanction such as 

continuous alcohol monitoring at the sentencing hearing or any subsequent 

sentencing hearings. 

II. Law and Analysis
{¶6} Appellant argues first that his community control expired and the court had 

no authority to sentence him to a jail term for violations that occurred after expiration. 

The city concedes this assignment of error. This concession is dispositive. 

{¶7} An appellate court “reviews de novo a trial court’s refusal to dismiss a 

violation of community control for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” State v. Meyer, 

2014-Ohio-3705, 18 N.E.3d 805, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.), citing State v. McQuade, 9th Dist. 

Medina No. 08CA0081-M, 2009-Ohio-4795, ¶ 6. 

{¶8} A sentencing court may extend a period of community control as a result of a 

violation of conditions thereof, so long as the total time does not exceed five years. R.C. 

2951.07. Further, R.C. 2929.25(B) provides that the court may impose additional or 

revised community control sanctions for the duration of the period of community control. 

 However, in this case, there is no entry or order of the court extending the term of 

appellant’s community control beyond the initial two-year period. There is also no 

argument that a tolling event applies in this case that would extend the period of 

community control. See Meyer. Therefore, the court lost jurisdiction to impose any 

consequence for violations that occurred after July 17, 2015. As such, the court had no 

authority to impose a 20-day jail term in April 2016. Id. at ¶ 17. Appellant’s first 

assignment of error is sustained. This renders appellant’s second assignment of error 

moot. 

{¶9} This cause is reversed and remanded to the Berea Municipal Court for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
It is ordered that appellant recover of said 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 Berea 

Municipal 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. 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR