Court Opinion

ID: 9907255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 00:06:12.190285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:08.986370
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Kingseed, 2023-Ohio-4358.]

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                              CRAWFORD COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                          CASE NO. 3-23-17
         PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

    v.

AUSTIN KINGSEED,                                          OPINION

         DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 21-CR-0169

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                           Date of Decision: December 4, 2023

APPEARANCES:

         Howard A. Elliot for Appellant

         Ryan M. Hoovler for Appellee
Case No. 3-23-17

ZIMMERMAN, J.

        {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Austin Kingseed (“Kingseed”), appeals the April

18, 2023 judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas revoking his

community control for violating the terms of his judicial release and reimposing his

original-prison sentence. We affirm.

        {¶2} On May 25, 2021, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted Kingseed

on Count One of possession of a fentanyl-related compound in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A), (C)(9)(b) and (C)(11)(b), a fourth-degree felony, and Count Two of

possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.14(C)(1), (F)(1), a

fourth-degree misdemeanor. On May 27, 2021, Kingseed appeared by remote

contemporaneous video and entered pleas of not guilty.

        {¶3} On July 21, 2021, Kingseed withdrew his pleas of not guilty and entered

a guilty plea, under a negotiated-plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment.

Specifically, in exchange for Kingseed’s change of plea, the State agreed to a joint-

sentencing recommendation. The trial court accepted Kingseed’s guilty plea, found

him guilty, and sentenced him (based on the joint-sentencing recommendation of

the parties) to five years of community control.1 Kingseed did not directly appeal

his conviction or sentence.

1
 Even though the docket reflects that Count Two was dismissed, we are unable to discern from the record
when it was dismissed.

                                                 -2-
Case No. 3-23-17

        {¶4} After the State filed two motions to revoke Kingseed’s community

control, the trial court concluded on January 31, 2022 that Kingseed violated the

terms of his community control, revoked Kingseed’s community control and

sentenced him to 18 months in prison. Kingseed did not directly appeal the trial

court’s decision revoking his community control and imposing the prison sentence.

        {¶5} On April 13, 2022, Kingseed filed a motion for judicial release, which

the State did not oppose. After a hearing on June 13, 2022, the trial court granted

Kingseed’s motion for judicial release, released him from prison and placed him on

judicial release with community-control sanctions.

        {¶6} On February 6, 2023, the State filed a motion requesting that the trial

court revoke Kingseed’s community control. After a hearing that same day, the trial

court concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Kingseed violated the

terms of his judicial release. The trial court proceeded to a final-revocation hearing

on April 17, 2023 in which the trial court concluded that Kingseed violated the terms

of his judicial release “[b]y way of admission by [Kingseed],” revoked his judicial

release, and reimposed its original sentence.2 (Doc. No. 60).

        {¶7} On May 11, 2023, Kingseed filed his notice of appeal. He raises one

assignment of error for our review.

2
  The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentence revoking Kingseed’s community control for violating
the terms of his judicial release and reimposing his original-prison sentence on April 18, 2023.

                                                   -3-
Case No. 3-23-17

                               Assignment of Error

       The trial abused [sic] its discretion in revoking judicial
       release/community control and imprisoning a defendant with a
       history of struggling substance abuse issues, who tested positive
       for a singular community control violation by way of illegal use of
       a controlled substance thus requiring the matter be reversed and
       remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

       {¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Kingseed argues that the trial court

abused its discretion by reimposing his original term of incarceration instead of

imposing a sanction in accordance with R.C. 2929.13(E)(2). Specifically, Kingseed

contends that the trial court abused its discretion by reimposing the remainder of his

original prison term because the violation of the terms and conditions of his judicial

release is based on his personal drug abuse.

                                Standard of Review

       {¶9} “The decision of a trial court to revoke a defendant’s judicial release

based on a violation of his community control sanctions imposed under R.C.

2929.20(K) will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Arm, 3d

Dist. Union Nos. 14-14-03 and 14-14-04, 2014-Ohio-3771, ¶ 22. Accord State v.

Barefield, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-09-117, 2023-Ohio-115, ¶ 25. An abuse

of discretion suggests the trial court’s decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980).

                                         -4-
Case No. 3-23-17

                                        Analysis

        {¶10} For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by revoking Kingseed’s judicial release and reimposing his

original prison sentence with credit for time already served. Importantly,

        [t]he rules which apply to the violation of community control imposed
        as the original sentence under R.C. 2929.15 should not be confused
        with the provisions applied to judicial release under R.C. 2929.20,
        even though “R.C. 2929.20(K) confusingly uses the term ‘community
        control’ in reference to the status of an offender granted judicial
        release.”

State v. Arrendondo, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-22-30, 2023-Ohio-491, ¶ 5, quoting

State v. Lammie, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-21-12, 2022-Ohio-419, ¶ 10.

        {¶11} Ohio’s judicial release statute, R.C. 2929.20, provides, in relevant

part:

        If the court grants a motion for judicial release under this section, the
        court shall order the release of the eligible offender, shall place the
        eligible offender under an appropriate community control sanction,
        under appropriate conditions, and under the supervision of the
        department of probation serving the court and shall reserve the right
        to reimpose the sentence that it reduced if the offender violates the
        sanction. If the court reimposes the reduced sentence, it may do so
        either concurrently with, or consecutive to, any new sentence imposed
        upon the eligible offender as a result of the violation that is a new
        offense.

R.C. 2929.20(K). “Accordingly, if a defendant violates the conditions of judicial

release, the trial court is limited to reimposing the original term of incarceration with

credit for time already served.” State v. Jones, 3d Dist. Mercer Nos. 10-07-26 and

10-07-27, 2008-Ohio-2117, ¶ 15. “The trial court may not alter the defendant’s

                                          -5-
Case No. 3-23-17

original sentence except to reimpose the sentence consecutively to or concurrently

with a new sentence it imposes as a result of the judicial release violation that is a

new criminal offense.” Id. It is error for a trial court, after revoking judicial release,

to impose a greater or lesser sentence than the original sentence. State v. Salter,

10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-211, 2014-Ohio-5524, ¶ 8. See also Jones at ¶ 15.

       {¶12} In this case, because the trial court was limited to reimposing the

remainder of Kingseed’s original sentence when it revoked his judicial release,

Kingseed’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to impose a

sanction in accordance with R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) is without merit. Critically, “R.C.

2929.13(E)(2) sanctions are not applicable when a trial court is revoking a

defendant’s judicial release under R.C. 2929.20.” State v. Thompson, 3d Dist.

Crawford Nos. 3-16-01 and 3-16-12, 2016-Ohio-8401, ¶ 15. Indeed, that statute

provides:

       If an offender who was convicted of or pleaded guilty to a felony
       violates the conditions of a community control sanction imposed for
       the offense solely by reason of producing positive results on a drug
       test, the court, as punishment for the violation of the sanction, shall
       not order that the offender be imprisoned unless the court determines
       on the record either of the following:

       (a) The offender had been ordered as a sanction for the felony to
       participate in a drug treatment program, in a drug education program,
       or in narcotics anonymous or a similar program, and the offender
       continued to use illegal drugs after a reasonable period of participation
       in the program.

       (b) The imprisonment of the offender for the violation is consistent
       with the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in section
       2929.11 of the Revised Code.
                                           -6-
Case No. 3-23-17

R.C. 2929.13(E)(2). See also Arrendondo at ¶ 8 (noting that R.C. 2929.13(E)(2)

“prohibits a trial court from imposing a prison term for violation of a sanction if the

violation is for producing a positive drug screen or a minor drug possession

offense”).

       {¶13} Consequently, “imposition of a sanction under R.C. 2929.13(E)(2)

applies only when a defendant violates the conditions of a community-control

sanction under R.C. 2929.15, not when a defendant violates the conditions of his or

her judicial release under R.C. 2929.20.” Thompson at ¶ 16. See also Arrendondo

at ¶ 8 (affirming “that R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) sanctions are not applicable when a trial

court is revoking a defendant’s judicial release”).         Therefore, “because the

imposition of a sanction under R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) does not apply to the revocation

of judicial release under R.C. 2929.20,” the trial court did not abuse its discretion

by reimposing Kingseed’s prison sentence with credit for time already served.

Thompson at ¶ 16. Accord Arrendondo at ¶ 8.

       {¶14} Thus, Kingseed’s assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶15} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                 Judgment Affirmed

MILLER, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.

/hls

                                          -7-