Court Opinion

ID: 9918794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 17:15:47.929178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:52.450914
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Vawter, 2024-Ohio-131.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,                                           CASE NO. 5-23-28

         PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

    v.

VICTOR A. VAWTER,                                        OPINION

         DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                 Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 2022 CR 00003

                             Judgment Reversed and Vacated

                            Date of Decision: January 16, 2024

APPEARANCES:

         W. Alex Smith for Appellant

         Steven M. Powell for Appellee
Case No. 5-23-28

WALDICK, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Victor A. Vawter (“Vawter”), appeals the June

26, 2023 judgment of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas, in which the

trial court resentenced Vawter due to an oversight at the original sentencing hearing

held in 2022. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

                        Factual and Procedural Background

       {¶2} On January 4, 2022, the Hancock County Grand Jury returned a two-

count indictment against Vawter. Count 1 of the indictment charged Vawter with

Trafficking in a Fentanyl-Related Compound, a fifth-degree felony in violation of

R.C. 2925.03, and Count 2 charged Trafficking in a Fentanyl-Related Compound, a

fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03.

       {¶3} On January 26, 2022, Vawter was arraigned and he entered initial

pleas of not guilty.

       {¶4} On March 28, 2022, a change of plea hearing was held. At that time,

Vawter withdrew his pleas of not guilty and pled guilty to both counts of the

indictment. The trial court ordered a presentence investigation and scheduled

sentencing for a later date.

       {¶5} On August 18, 2022, a sentencing hearing was held and Vawter was

sentenced to a five-year term of community control on each count, to be served

concurrently. That sentence was journalized by entry filed on August 19, 2022.

                                         -2-
Case No. 5-23-28

       {¶6} The August 19, 2022 judgment entry of sentencing states, in relevant

part, that “[t]he defendant was informed that violation of any conditions of their

community control sanction, violations of law, or leaving the state without the

permission of the Court may result in imposition of a reserved prison term on each

count from the range of prison terms for the offenses as detailed below”, and it was

then noted that the reserved prison sentence for Count 1 was in the range of 6 to 12

months and that the reserved prison sentence for Count 2 was in the range of 6 to

18 months. (8/19/22 Judgment Entry, Docket No. 21). However, the transcript of

the August 18, 2022 sentencing hearing reflects that the trial court neglected to

advise Vawter on the record as to the reserved range of prison terms in the event

prison sentences were subsequently to be imposed following a community control

violation.

       {¶7} On June 5, 2023, the trial court filed a judgment entry that reads in

relevant part:

       This matter comes before the court on Docket review. The Defendant
       in this matter was sentenced to community control supervision. As a
       result of the ruling of the Third District Court of Appeals in State v.
       VanDenEynde, Case No. 5-22-38, issued on May 30, 2023, IT IS
       HEREBY ORDERED that this matter shall come on for Re-
       Sentencing on June 26, 2023, at 9:00 a.m.

(Emphasis sic.) (6/5/23 Judgment Entry, Docket No. 41).

       {¶8} In the case referenced by the trial court, State v. Van Den Eynde, 3d

Dist. Hancock No. 5-22-38, 2023-Ohio-1790, this Court reversed a prison sentence

                                         -3-
Case No. 5-23-28

that had been imposed following a community control violation because the trial

court failed to expressly reserve a stated range of potential prison terms at the time

of the defendant’s original sentencing hearing, as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(4)

and State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746.

       {¶9} In the instant case, it appears from the record that, following the

release of this Court’s decision in Van Den Eynde, the trial court determined it had

not adequately given the notice required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) to Vawter at his

sentencing hearing, and therefore had failed to reserve the right to impose a prison

term in the event Vawter should violate his community control.

       {¶10} On June 8, 2023, Vawter filed a motion in opposition to the

resentencing hearing, asserting that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction and

authority to reopen the case and hold a new sentencing hearing at that time. Vawter

noted that, pursuant to State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13, 2004-Ohio-7110, the trial

court would be able to provide the R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) notice at a subsequent

community control violation hearing, should one be held. However, because there

was no alleged community control violation pending at that time, Vawter argued

that holding a resentencing hearing was improper.

       {¶11} On June 9, 2023, the trial court filed a judgment entry overruling

Vawter’s objection to the resentencing. In that decision, the trial court reasoned that

it had erred at the original sentencing hearing in failing to notify Vawter pursuant

to R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) of the range of prison terms being reserved. Based on that

                                         -4-
Case No. 5-23-28

error, the trial court found Vawter’s original sentence to be invalid and therefore

ruled that the court was not precluded from revisiting its original judgment of

sentencing. The trial court also applied the following rationale to its decision:

       Finally, from a practical standpoint, the proposed resentencing is
       consistent with what the Defendant acknowledges would be
       appropriate under Fraley. The Defendant acknowledges that the
       Court could fix this error following a community control
       violation/revocation hearing. The arguments of the Defendant are
       therefore that the Court cannot correct the error by resentencing the
       Defendant, but it would be perfectly acceptable for a violation of
       community control to be filed for the smallest, most technical
       violation of the terms of community control, for the Court to find the
       Defendant to be in violation of community control, and then sentence
       the Defendant to the exact same terms of community control and fix
       the error. This does not seem to be required by Fraley * * * .

(6/9/23 Judgment Entry, Docket No. 44).

       {¶12} On June 26, 2023, a resentencing hearing was held and the trial court

sentenced Vawter to the same five-year term of community control as had been

originally ordered in 2022, upon the same terms and conditions as the original

sentence of community control. (6/26/23 Tr., 8-9). The trial court then advised

Vawter that, should he violate the terms of community control, he could be subject

to more restrictive terms of community control or, alternatively, the trial court could

terminate the community control and order Vawyter to serve a prison sentence from

within the range of prison terms available for the offenses at issue, being a range of

6 to 12 months on the fifth-degree felony and a range of 6 to 18 months on the

fourth-degree felony. (6/26/23 Tr., 9-11).

                                         -5-
Case No. 5-23-28

       {¶13} On July 18, 2023, Vawter filed the instant appeal. Vawter raises two

assignments of error for our review, which we shall jointly address.

                             First Assignment of Error

       The trial court erred by sua sponte resentencing appellant when
       the original sentence was not attacked on direct appeal, nor had a
       probation violation, nor a mandate from the Court of Appeals.

                            Second Assignment of Error

       Vawter’s 2023 resentencing violated the Double Jeopardy Clause
       of the 5th Amendment.

       {¶14} In both assignments of error, Vawter asserts that the trial court erred

in resentencing him in June of 2023, after a valid and therefore final sentence had

already been imposed in August of 2022.

       {¶15} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may reverse a

sentence “only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does

not support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is

otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002,

¶ 1. Clear and convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the

trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id.

at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954),

paragraph three of the syllabus.

                                           -6-
Case No. 5-23-28

       {¶16} At issue in this appeal are the sentencing requirements set forth in

R.C. 2929.19(B)(4), and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Ohio that have

analyzed and applied those requirements.

       R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) reads as follows:

       If the sentencing court determines at the sentencing hearing that a
       community control sanction should be imposed and the court is not
       prohibited from imposing a community control sanction, the court
       shall impose a community control sanction. The court shall notify the
       offender that, if the conditions of the sanction are violated, if the
       offender commits a violation of any law, or if the offender leaves this
       state without the permission of the court or the offender's probation
       officer, the court may impose a longer time under the same sanction,
       may impose a more restrictive sanction, or may impose a prison term
       on the offender and shall indicate the range from which the prison
       term may be imposed as a sanction for the violation, which shall be
       the range of prison terms for the offense that is specified pursuant to
       section 2929.14 of the Revised Code and as described in section
       2929.15 of the Revised Code.

       {¶17} In State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, the Supreme

Court of Ohio examined a prior version of R.C. 2929.19(B)(4), then numbered as

R.C. 2929.19(B)(5), which in relevant part provided that, in sentencing an offender

to community control, a trial court:

       * * * shall notify the offender that, if the conditions of the sanction
       are violated, if the offender commits a violation of any law, or if the
       offender leaves this state without the permission of the court or the
       offender’s probation officer, the court may impose a longer time under
       the same sanction, may impose a more restrictive sanction, or may
       impose a prison term on the offender and shall indicate the specific
       prison term that may be imposed as a sanction for the violation, as
       selected by the court from the range of prison terms for the offense
       pursuant to section 2929.14 of the Revised Code.

                                         -7-
Case No. 5-23-28

       {¶18} In Brooks, the Ohio Supreme Court identified two main issues to

consider in evaluating a trial court’s compliance with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5): first, the

point in time at which the notice must be given and, secondly, the extent of the

notice required by the statute and the language that must be used by a trial court

when giving the notice. Brooks, at ¶ 13. As to the former, the Supreme Court held

that “a trial court sentencing an offender to a community control sanction must, at

the time of the sentencing, notify the offender of the specific prison term that may

be imposed for a violation of the conditions of the sanction, as a prerequisite to

imposing a prison term on the offender for a subsequent violation.” Brooks, at ¶ 29.

The Supreme Court specifically held that this notice must be given “at the

sentencing hearing” and that “notification given in a court’s journal entry issued

after sentencing does not comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5).” (Emphasis added.)

Brooks, at ¶¶ 15-18.

       {¶19} Shortly after the Brooks decision was issued, the Supreme Court of

Ohio again considered the issue of the timing of the notification required by R.C.

2929.19(B)(5) in State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13, 2004-Ohio-7110. In Fraley,

the trial court originally sentenced the defendant to community control but did not

notify the defendant at the original sentencing hearing of a specific prison term that

could be imposed should the terms of community control be violated. Id., at ¶ 1.

However, at a subsequent community control violation hearing where the defendant

was found to have violated his community control but was continued on community

                                         -8-
Case No. 5-23-28

control, the trial court then informed the defendant pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(5)

of the specific prison terms that could be imposed should there be further

community control violations. Id., at ¶ 4. The defendant subsequently violated his

community control again, and the trial court terminated the community control and

imposed a prison sentence, which the defendant then appealed. Id., at ¶¶ 5-7.

       {¶20} On appeal, the defendant in Fraley argued that the lack of the R.C.

2929.19(B)(5) prison term notification at the original sentencing hearing prohibited

the trial court from imposing a prison sentence in the case. Fraley, supra, at ¶¶ 6-8.

When the Supreme Court of Ohio considered the issue, the Court held that when a

community control violation occurs, and a defendant is found to have committed a

violation, “the court sentences the offender anew [.]” Id., at ¶ 17. Accordingly, the

Ohio Supreme Court held that a trial court “could therefore comply with both the

sentencing statutes and our holding in Brooks if at this second hearing the court

notifies the offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for a

subsequent violation occurring after this second hearing.” Id. On that basis, the

Supreme Court found that the trial court in that case was authorized to impose a

prison term because the trial court had complied with the notice requirement in R.C.

2929.19(B)(5) by correcting the initial Brooks violation at a later sentencing

hearing. Id., at ¶19.

       {¶21} In the instant case, as previously noted, the trial court relied on the

decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Fraley, supra, in overruling

                                         -9-
Case No. 5-23-28

Vawter’s objection to being resentenced. We find that the trial court interpreted

Fraley too broadly. The Fraley decision does not authorize or support holding the

resentencing that occurred in this case, even though, as the trial court pointed out,

Fraley clearly authorizes correcting the R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) notice at a community

control violation hearing, should there be one.

       {¶22} As detailed above, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined in Fraley

that a Brooks violation at an initial sentencing hearing could be subsequently

remedied by providing the R.C. 2929.19(B)(5), now R.C. 2929.19(B)(4), notice at

a subsequent community control violation hearing. However, the decision in Fraley

was based strictly on the rationale that a community control violation hearing

constitutes another sentencing hearing and, therefore, notifying a defendant at such

a hearing of the prison term that may be imposed for a subsequent community

control violation satisfies the requirement that the notice be given at the sentencing

hearing. We find nothing in the Fraley decision that supports the proposition that a

new sentencing hearing can be held for the sole purpose of correcting a Brooks

violation that occurred at the original sentencing.

       {¶23} Our decision here is also guided by the well-established rule that “trial

courts lack authority to reconsider their own valid final judgments in criminal

cases.” State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335, 338, 686 N.E.2d 267 (1997),

citing State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed, 63 Ohio St.3d 597, 589 N.E.2d 1324 (1992).

That rule stems from the fact that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects a defendant’s

                                         -10-
Case No. 5-23-28

right to finality for an acquittal and prevents multiple punishments for the same

conviction. Brook Park v. Necak, 30 Ohio App.3d 118, 506 N.E.2d 936 (1986),

citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 795-796, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707

(1969).

       {¶24} In the instant case, notwithstanding the general rule concerning the

finality of judgments in criminal cases, the trial court reasoned that a resentencing

hearing was appropriate because the original sentence was invalid due to the error

at the original sentencing hearing in failing to notify Vawter of the prison terms

being reserved pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(4). For that reason, the trial court found

that it was not precluded from revisiting its original judgment of sentencing.

       {¶25} In that regard, we note that there was previously a line of Ohio

Supreme Court precedent that may have supported the trial court’s rationale that

such an error at sentencing rendered the sentence void and therefore not final. See,

e.g., State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353, 2006-Ohio-5795.

However, the Supreme Court of Ohio “realigned” its “void-sentence jurisprudence”

in State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, and State v. Henderson,

161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784.            Pursuant to Harper and Henderson,

“sentences based on an error” are voidable, not void, “if the court imposing the

sentence has jurisdiction over the case and the defendant.” Henderson, at ¶ 1; see

also Harper at ¶ 4. If a sentencing error renders a defendant’s sentence voidable,

                                        -11-
Case No. 5-23-28

the error must be challenged on direct appeal, or the sentence will be subject to res

judicata. Harper, at ¶ 43.

       {¶26} In this case, there is no claim that the trial court lacked subject-matter

jurisdiction over Vawter’s case or personal jurisdiction over Vawter himself when

he was originally sentenced in August of 2022. Accordingly, even assuming

arguendo that the Brooks error at sentencing rendered the sentence voidable, the

sentence was not challenged on direct appeal. As a result, Vawter had a legitimate

expectation of finality in his sentence when that original sentence was imposed in

2022, and the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited the trial court

from reopening the case in 2023 to reconsider or amend the final judgment

previously entered.

       {¶27} We therefore sustain Vawter’s two assignments of error.

                                     Conclusion

       {¶28} Having found error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant, Victor A.

Vawter, in the particulars assigned and argued, the June 26, 2023 judgment of the

Hancock County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and vacated.

                                                   Judgment Reversed and Vacated

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. AND ZIMMERMAN, J., concur

                                         -12-