Court Opinion

ID: 9929910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 18:06:27.406144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:52:52.184484
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Owsley, 2024-Ohio-387.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                           CASE NO. 2-23-09
         PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

    v.

AUSTIN R. OWSLEY,                                          OPINION

         DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                 Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court
                            Trial Court No. 2020-CR-23

                                        Appeal Dismissed

                            Date of Decision: February 5, 2024

APPEARANCES:

         Nicholas A. Catania for Appellant

         Benjamin R. Elder for Appellee
Case No. 2-23-09

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.

      {¶1} Defendant-appellant Austin R. Owsley (“Owsley”) appeals the

judgment of the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial

court erred in reserving a sentence for a potential community control violation. For

the reasons set forth below, this appeal from the judgment of the trial court is

dismissed.

                          Facts and Procedural History

      {¶2} On March 19, 2020, Owsley pled guilty to two counts of trafficking in

drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) as fourth-degree felonies. On May 26,

2020, he was sentenced to five years of community control. The trial court informed

Owsley that it could order him to serve two seventeen-month prison terms

concurrently if he violated the terms of his community control.

      {¶3} On July 14, 2021, Owsley admitted to violating the terms of his

community control and was sentenced to five years of community control. The trial

court informed Owsley that it could order him to serve two eighteen month prison

terms consecutively if he violated the terms of his community control.

      {¶4} On August 5, 2021, Owsley appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial

court erred by reserving a longer term of imprisonment at his July 15, 2021 hearing

than was reserved at his original May 26, 2020 sentencing hearing. He noted that

                                        -2-
Case No. 2-23-09

the reserved term of imprisonment went from concurrent, seventeen-month prison

terms to consecutive, eighteen-month prison terms.

       {¶5} On December 27, 2021, this Court issued a decision and “held that an

appeal of a reserved sentence of imprisonment that is part of a sentence of

community control is not ripe until an actual sentencing order imposes the prison

term for community control violation.” (Doc. 129), quoting State v. Poppe, 3d Dist.

Auglaize No. 2-06-23, 2007-Ohio-688, ¶ 14. As the reserved prison terms had not

been imposed, this Court found his sole assignment of error was not ripe for review

and dismissed his appeal. State v. Owsley, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-21-13, 2021-

Ohio-4561, ¶ 7.

       {¶6} On July 21, 2023, Owsley admitted to violating the terms of his

community control and was sentenced to five years of community control. The trial

court informed Owsley that it could order him to serve two eighteen-month prison

terms consecutively if he violated the terms of his community control.

                                Assignment of Error

       {¶7} Owsley filed his notice of appeal on August 17, 2023. On appeal, he

raises the following assignment of error:

       The trial court imposed a prison sentence contrary to law when it
       imposed a sentence longer than that which the trial court stated it
       could impose at the original sentencing hearing.

He points out that the trial court reserved a longer term of imprisonment at his July

21, 2023 hearing than was reserved at his original May 26, 2020 sentencing hearing.

                                         -3-
Case No. 2-23-09

                                   Legal Standard

       {¶8} “In order to be justiciable, a controversy must be ripe for review.” State

v. Eitzman, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-21-03, 2022-Ohio-574, ¶ 43, quoting Keller v.

Columbus, 100 Ohio St.3d 192, 2003-Ohio-5599, 797 N.E.2d 964, ¶ 26.

       “The basic principle of ripeness may be derived from the conclusion
       that ‘judicial machinery should be conserved for problems which are
       real or present and imminent, not squandered on problems which are
       abstract or hypothetical or remote.’ * * * [T]he prerequisite of
       ripeness is a limitation on jurisdiction that is nevertheless basically
       optimistic as regards the prospects of a day in court: the time for
       judicial relief is simply not yet arrived, even though the alleged action
       of the defendant foretells legal injury to the plaintiff.” Comment,
       Mootness and Ripeness: The Postman Always Rings Twice (1965),
       65 Colum. L.Rev. 867, 876.

State ex rel. Elyria Foundry Co. v. Indus. Comm., 82 Ohio St.3d 88, 89, 694 N.E.2d

459, 460 (1998). “A claim is not ripe for our consideration if it rests on contingent

future events that may not occur as anticipated or may never occur at all.” State v.

Loving, 180 Ohio App.3d 424, 2009-Ohio-15, 905 N.E.2d 1234, ¶ 4.

                                   Legal Analysis

       {¶9} At this juncture, we have no way of knowing whether the reserved

sentence that is challenged in this appeal will ever be imposed. This eventuality is

dependent on several events—Owsley committing a community control violation

and the trial court responding by imposing a prison sentence—that may never occur.

Given these uncertainties,

       this court, as well as others, has consistently held that an appeal of a
       reserved sentence of imprisonment that is part of a sentence of

                                         -4-
Case No. 2-23-09

       community control is not ripe until an actual sentencing order imposes
       the prison term for community control violation.

Poppe, supra, at ¶ 14. See State v. Ogle, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-01-040, 2002 WL

313386, *4 (Mar. 1, 2002); State v. Daniel, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2014-T-0044,

2015-Ohio-3826, ¶ 9.         “If, and when, [Owsley] is sentenced to a term of

incarceration for violation of his community control sanctions, he can appeal that

sentencing order on the grounds set forth herein * * *.” Owsley, supra, at ¶ 6,

quoting Poppe, supra, at ¶ 17. Since the reserved prison sentence is only a

possibility that rests on contingent events that may never occur, we conclude that

this assignment of error is not ripe for review. Owsley at ¶ 7.

                                     Conclusion

       {¶10} Having found that the particulars assigned and argued are not ripe for

review, the appeal from the judgment of the Auglaize County Court of Common

Pleas is hereby dismissed.

                                                                  Appeal Dismissed

WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/hls

                                         -5-