Court Opinion

ID: 9927698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 20:08:35.49221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:20.317820
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Miller, 2024-Ohio-279.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                   TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO,                              :       JUDGES:
                                            :       Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
        Plaintiff - Appellee                :       Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                            :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-                                        :
                                            :
SHAWN A. MILLER,                            :       Case No. 2023 AP 03 0022
                                            :
        Defendant - Appellant               :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Tuscarawas County
                                                    Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                    2022 CR 04 0139

JUDGMENT:                                           Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                   January 25, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                              For Defendant-Appellant

KRISTINE W. BEARD                                   AARON KOVALCHICK
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney                      116 Cleveland Avenue NW, Suite 808
Tuscarawas County Prosecutor's Office               Canton, Ohio 44702
125 E. High Ave.
New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0022                                           2

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   The appellant appeals the trial court’s imposition of the balance of his post-

release control time following his plea of guilty to new crimes committed while on post-

release control.

                     STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}   On April 15, 2022, the appellant was indicted by the Tuscarawas County

Grand Jury on one count of having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C.

2923.13, a third-degree felony; two counts of aggravated possession of drugs in violation

of R.C. 2925.11(A), fifth degree felonies; one count of possession of a fentanyl related

compound in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth-degree felony; and, one count of illegal

use or possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.14(C)(1), a fourth

degree misdemeanor. The appellant was on post-release control at the time he was

alleged to have committed the offenses. He was arraigned on May 12, 2022, at which

time he pleaded not guilty to the charges.

       {¶3}   On January 9, 2023, the appellant appeared with counsel before the trial

court for a Change of Plea Hearing and changed his plea to guilty on all counts. Prior to

the hearing the appellant executed an Acknowledgement of Guilty Plea form which

specifically stated in part: “I understand that if I am now on felony probation, parole, under

a community control sanction, or under post release control from prison, this plea may

result in revocation proceedings and any new sentence could be imposed consecutively.”

       {¶4}   Prior to the trial court’s acceptance of the appellant’s change of plea to

guilty, his counsel advised the court that he had reviewed with the appellant the six-page

Acknowledgement of Guilty Plea form, including the notice that the conviction on the new
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0022                                          3

charge could result in the revocation of the appellant’s post-release control on the

unrelated charge and the imposition of a consecutive sentence for the violation. In

addition, the trial court addressed the Acknowledgement of Guilty Plea form with the

appellant, and advised him that if he was “currently on felony probation, parole,

community control sanctions or post release control, a plea to a new charge could result

in revocation proceedings.”

       {¶5}   Further, the trial court advised the appellant of his constitutional rights and

the maximum penalties for each count in the indictment, and addressed the appellant’s

satisfaction with counsel and the terms of post-conviction release. The trial court accepted

the appellant’s guilty plea and scheduled the matter for a sentencing hearing in order for

a presentence investigation to be completed.

       {¶6}   The matter proceeded to sentencing on March 20, 2023. Earlier the same

day, the appellant had been sentenced in yet another unrelated criminal case to serve an

aggregate twenty-four months in prison. During the sentencing hearing, the appellee

noted that community control had not been granted in the other criminal matter, and

changed its recommendation to imposition of a twenty-four month prison sentence to run

concurrently with the other twenty-four month prison term.

       {¶7}   The trial court addressed the appellant directly, stating “…the offense in this

case was committed June fifteenth of twenty twenty-one, you had just been released from

prison February that year. You were on post release control when the offense was

committed”. The trial court went on to note that the appellant had “roughly thirty-three

felony convictions,” and noted further that the original sentencing hearing had been

continued from March 2, 2023 because the appellant had failed to appear and a capias
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0022                                             4

had to be issued for his arrest. The trial court noted the appellant had engaged in crimes

of violence, including escape; intimidation of an attorney, victim, and witness in a criminal

case; and, robbery.

       {¶8}   In addition, the trial court stated that the appellant had engaged in ongoing

criminal behavior in spite of the sanctions imposed, “including seven prison terms”, “non-

compliance with PRC”, and “[f]our admissions to community based correctional facilities.”

The trial court spoke directly to the appellant, stating that “your most recent release from

prison was January twenty-second, and so in spite of that, within five weeks you’re again

non-compliant with court orders, so recidivism would appear to be more likely.”

       {¶9}   The trial court further stated, “You haven't complied with post release

control. You've had multiple revocations. And even while on bond in this case, when I

granted the OR bond with some hesitation, you still didn’t show up for court.” The trial

court then sentenced the appellant to an aggregate thirty-six month prison sentence to

run concurrently with the twenty-four month sentence imposed in the other criminal matter

earlier that morning.

       {¶10} The trial court also addressed the imposition of the appellant’s post-release

control time, stating “I am imposing your PRC time. That is a five hundred and sixty-one

day consecutive sentence. At this point I believe your PRC, you’ve been back on

sanctions at least twice . . . but this is precisely the kind of behavior that leads to that PRC

enhancement. And so for the balance of the time, the Court can impose the greater of the

time remaining or twelve months. In this case it is the five hundred and sixty-one days.

That is required to be imposed consecutive to the thirty-six months.”
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0022                                           5

       {¶11} The trial court issued a Judgment Entry of Conviction and Sentence

memorializing the appellant’s sentence, including the 561 days for his violation of the

terms of his post-release control.

       {¶12} The appellant filed a timely appeal in which he sets forth the sole

assignment of error:

       {¶13} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY IMPOSING A

PRISON TERM FOR A VIOLATION OF POST RELEASE CONTROL.”

                             STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶14} Trial courts have discretion regarding whether or not to impose the balance

of a term of post-release control when sentencing an offender who has committed a new

offense while on post-release control. State v. Boyd, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2018 AP

05 0023, 2018-Ohio-4709, ¶10. In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must find that

the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable, and not merely

an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140

(1983).

                                        ANALYSIS

       {¶15} R.C. 2929.141 addresses the commission of an offense by a person under

post-release control, and states in pertinent part:

       (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
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0022                                            6

       of this state imposed the original prison term for which the person is on post-

       release 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

       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.

       {¶16} Thus, the trial court has the discretion to impose a prison term for the

appellant’s violation of his post-release control violation; if it imposes a prison term, it is

required by statute to do so consecutively.

       {¶17} According to the record, the trial court exercised its discretion to impose the

appellant’s remaining post-release control time due to his commission of new crimes

while on PCR, his extensive prior record, and his failure to respond favorably to previously

imposed prison terms and post-control release opportunities. The appellant engaged in

ongoing criminal behavior in spite of the sanctions imposed, including seven prison terms,

non-compliance with PRC, and four admissions to community based correctional

facilities. Based upon the appellant’s history, the trial court determined that recidivism
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 03 0022                                     7

was likely. We find that the trial court did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, or

unconscionably in imposing the appellant’s post-release time to be served consecutively

with his sentence for his new crimes.

                                    CONCLUSION

      {¶18} The appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of

the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Wise, John, J. concur.