Court Opinion

ID: 9375371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:06:53.155109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.215084
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Arrendondo, 2023-Ohio-491.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                         CASE NO. 3-22-30
       PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

      v.

NICKOLAS ARRENDONDO,                                     OPINION

       DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

               Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
                         Trial Court No. 2015-CR-0367

                                     Judgment Affirmed

                           Date of Decision: February 21, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Kyle Phillips for Appellant

        Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee
Case No. 3-22-30

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

      {¶1} Defendant-appellant Nickolas Arrendondo (“Arrendondo”) brings this

appeal from the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Crawford County revoking

his judicial release community control and reimposing the remainder of the prison

sentence. On appeal Arrendondo claims that the trial court erred by reimposing the

prison sentence rather than allowing him to remain on community control. For the

reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.

      {¶2} On February 8, 2016, the trial court held a sentencing hearing in which

it found that Arrendondo had previously been convicted after entering pleas of

guilty to 1) Illegal Assembly or Possession of Chemicals for the Manufacture of

Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.041, a felony of the third degree; 2) Illegal

Manufacture of Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.04(C)(2)(b), a felony of the second

degree; 3) Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(1)(a), a felony of

the fifth degree; and 4) Having Weapons Under Disability in violation of R.C.

2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree. Doc. 16. The trial court ordered

Arrendondo to serve an agreed aggregate sentence of eleven years in prison. Doc.

16.

      {¶3} On April 13, 2021, Arrendondo filed a motion for judicial release. Doc.

25. The State did not object to the release after Arrendondo had served five and a

half years. Doc. 26. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on June 7, 2021,

                                        -2-
Case No. 3-22-30

at which the trial court granted the motion for judicial release. Doc. 28. The trial

court then suspended the remainder of Arrendondo’s prison sentence and placed

him on community control for a period of five years. Doc. 28.

       {¶4} On February 1, 2022, a motion was filed alleging that Arrendondo had

violated a condition of his community control by admitting to using

methamphetamines and then testing positive for the use of methamphetamines on

multiple occasions. Doc. 30. A hearing on the violations was held on July 18, 2022.

Doc. 45. At the hearing, Arrendondo admitted to the violations. Doc. 45. The trial

court then revoked Arrendondo’s judicial release and reimposed the original

sentence. Doc. 45. Arrendondo appealed from this judgment and raises the

following assignments of error on appeal. Doc. 49.

                           First Assignment of Error

       The trial court erred and abused its discretion by reimposing a
       prison sentence, contrary to R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, the
       principles and purposes of felony sentencing, by not allowing Mr.
       Arrendondo to remain on community control.

                          Second Assignment of Error

       The trial court erred and abused its discretion in violation of R.C.
       2929.13(E)(2), when it revoked Mr. Arrendondo’s community
       control and reimposed his prison sentence.

       {¶5} Initially, this Court notes that Arrendondo was not placed on

community control as a sanction, but upon judicial release where the prison term

that had been imposed was suspended. “A trial court's decision to revoke a

                                        -3-
Case No. 3-22-30

defendant's judicial release based    on    a    violation   of   the   conditions   of

his judicial release will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” State v.

Thompson, 3d Dist. Crawford Nos. 3-16-01 and 3-16-12, 2016-Ohio-8401, ¶ 11.

The 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. Lammie, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-21-12, 2022-Ohio-419,

¶ 10. Ohio’s judicial release statute provides in pertinent part as follows.

       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).

       {¶6} This Court in Lammie, supra, recently addressed the options a trial court

has when a defendant has violated the terms of his or her judicial release imposed

community control sanctions. In Lammie we held that if a defendant violated the

conditions of his or her judicial release, the trial court was limited to reimposing the

original sentence with credit for time served. Lammie at ¶ 12. “The trial court may

                                           -4-
Case No. 3-22-30

not alter the defendant’s 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. quoting State v. Jones,

3d Dist. Mercer Nos. 10-07-26 and 10-07-27, 2008-Ohio-2117, ¶ 15.

       {¶7} Here, Arrendondo first argues that the trial court erred by not properly

considering the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and

the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. However, because the trial court is

limited to reimposing the remainder of the original sentence if the judicial release is

revoked, the trial court is not required to reconsider R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12

or make any statutory findings that would be required when a felony sentence is

originally imposed. Thompson, supra at ¶ 14 and State v. Mann, 3d Dist. Crawford

No. 3-03-42, 2004-Ohio-4703, ¶ 16. Additionally, the trial court in its journal entry

indicated that it did consider R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, even though this was

not required. Doc. 45 at 1. Thus, the first assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶8} Arrendondo next argues that the trial court erred by imposing a prison

term for the violation in contradiction of R.C. 2929.13(E)(2). This statute 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. This

Court has previously determined that R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) sanctions are not

applicable when a trial court is revoking a defendant’s judicial release. Thompson,

supra at ¶ 15. As R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) does not apply in cases where judicial release

                                         -5-
Case No. 3-22-30

imposed community control is violated, the trial court did not err by failing to

comply with it. The second assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶9} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Crawford County

is affirmed.

                                                               Judgment Affirmed

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

/hls

                                       -6-