Court Opinion

ID: 9954104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 18:09:23.762287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:50.945148
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Murray, 2024-Ohio-1110.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,
                                                        CASE NO. 14-23-29
         PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

    v.

GLENDA MURRAY,                                          OPINION

         DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

                  Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 2015-CR-0217

                       Judgment Reversed and Cause Remanded

                            Date of Decision: March 25, 2024

APPEARANCES:

         Andrew M. Bigler for Appellant

         Samuel H. Shamansky and Katherine R. Clark for Appellee
Case No. 14-23-29

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.

       {¶1} The State of Ohio appeals the judgment of the Union County Court of

Common Pleas, alleging that the trial court erred in granting a motion for judicial

release. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

                           Facts and Procedural History

       {¶2} On September 1, 2016, Glenda M. Murray (“Murray”) pled guilty to

one count of burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(1), a second-degree felony,

and one count of attempted aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(2)

and R.C. 2923.02, a second-degree felony. After accepting these pleas, the trial

court ordered Murray to serve two five-year prison terms consecutively. On June

5, 2023, Murray filed a motion for judicial release. After a hearing on July 18, 2023,

the trial court granted this motion.

                                 Assignment of Error

       {¶3} The State of Ohio filed its notice of appeal on July 25, 2023. On appeal,

it raises the following assignment of error:

       The trial court erred when it granted appellee’s motion for
       judicial release.

The State argues that Murray did not carry the burden of establishing the statutory

factors in R.C. 2929.20(J)(2).

                                         -2-
Case No. 14-23-29

                                 Standard of Review

       {¶4} “[A]n order granting judicial release is a modification of sentence.”

State v. Sykes, 2018-Ohio-4774, 124 N.E.3d 406, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). In turn, “R.C.

2953.08 governs appeals based on the felony sentencing guidelines.” State v. Brill,

2023-Ohio-404, 207 N.E.3d 1274, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). R.C. 2953.08(B)(3) reads, in its

relevant part, as follows:

       (B) In addition to any other right to appeal * * *, a prosecuting
       attorney * * * may appeal as a matter of right a sentence imposed upon
       a defendant who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony or, in the
       circumstances described in division (B)(3) of this section the
       modification of a sentence imposed upon such a defendant, on any of
       the following grounds:

       ***

       (3) The sentence is a modification under section 2929.20 of the
       Revised Code of a sentence that was imposed for a felony of the first
       or second degree.

Next, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) sets forth the proper scope of felony sentencing review

on appeal and reads, in its relevant part, as follows:

       (2) The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this
       section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the
       sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.

       The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a
       sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence
       and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The
       appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing
       court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action
       authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either
       of the following:

                                          -3-
Case No. 14-23-29

       (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings
       under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or
       (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the
       Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;

       (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

“Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will

produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the

allegations sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 120

N.E.2d 118 (1954).

                                   Legal Standard

       {¶5} R.C. 2929.20(J) governs judicial release and reads, in its relevant part,

as follows:

       (J)(1) A court shall not grant a judicial release under this section to an
       offender who is imprisoned for a felony of the first or second degree
       and who is under consideration as an eligible offender * * * unless the
       court, with reference to factors under section 2929.12 of the Revised
       Code, finds both of the following:

       (a) That a sanction other than a prison term would adequately punish
       the offender and protect the public from future criminal violations by
       the offender because the applicable factors indicating a lesser
       likelihood of recidivism outweigh the applicable factors indicating a
       greater likelihood of recidivism;

       (b) That a sanction other than a prison term would not demean the
       seriousness of the offense because factors indicating that the
       offender’s conduct in committing the offense was less serious than
       conduct normally constituting the offense outweigh factors indicating
       that the eligible offender’s conduct was more serious than conduct
       normally constituting the offense.

                                          -4-
Case No. 14-23-29

         (2) A court that grants a judicial release under division (J)(1) of this
         section to an offender who is under consideration as an eligible
         offender shall specify on the record both findings required in that
         division and also shall list all the factors described in that division
         that were presented at the hearing.

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.20(J)(1), (2). “Thus, ‘before a trial court may grant

judicial release, the court must make the findings contained in R.C. 2929.20(J) with

reference to factors in R.C. 2929.12, specify those findings on the record, and list

the relevant factors presented at the hearing.’” State v. Kennedy, 10th Dist. Franklin

Nos. 22AP-534, 22AP-536, 2023-Ohio-3078, ¶ 36,1 quoting State v. Nichter, 10th

Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-40, 2015-Ohio-3489, ¶ 7. See also State v. Williams, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109903, 2021-Ohio-1956, ¶ 11.

                                             Legal Analysis

         {¶6} At the hearing on the motion for judicial release, the trial court

expressly made the required findings set forth in R.C. 2929.20(J)(1) and

incorporated these findings into its judgment entry. However, the trial court did not

list the factors that were present as required by R.C. 2929.20(J)(2).                               State v.

Edwards, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-04-67, 2005-Ohio-2246, ¶ 5; State v. Walker, 10th

1
 On January 23, 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted an appeal of the decision in State v. Kennedy. See
Id., 172 Ohio St.3d 1462, 2024-Ohio-163. The issue raised in that appeal addresses judicial release eligibility
pursuant to R.C. 2929.20.

                                                     -5-
Case No. 14-23-29

Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-181, 2014-Ohio-4586, ¶ 9; State v. Gilbert, 12th Dist.

Butler No. CA2022-02-021, 2022-Ohio-3387, ¶ 19.

       {¶7} While the trial court considered some evidence that could go to the R.C.

2929.12 seriousness and recidivism factors, R.C. 2929.20(J) “requires the trial court

to list on the record the R.C. 2929.12 factors presented at the hearing.” State v.

Weiss, 180 Ohio App.3d 509, 2009-Ohio-78, 905 N.E.3d 509, ¶ 17 (3d Dist.).

Because R.C. 2929.12(B) and (C) permit a court to consider “any other relevant

factors” in addition to the enumerated factors, it is important that the record reflect

the trial court’s findings.

       {¶8} “In the absence of such findings, this court is unable to determine

whether or not the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for judicial

release.” State v. Hunt, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-1177, 2005-Ohio-3144, ¶ 13.

See Gilbert at ¶ 19 (reversing a decision to grant judicial release where the trial court

discussed evidence that was relevant to the 2929.12 factors but did not “specifically

list all the factors that were presented, as required by R.C. 2929.20(J)(2)”).

       {¶9} Accordingly, we reverse this judgment and remand this case for the

purpose of allowing the trial court to list the recidivism and seriousness factors that

were presented at the hearing under R.C. 2929.20(J)(1) and to reissue a

determination on the motion for judicial release that is in compliance with R.C.

                                          -6-
Case No. 14-23-29

2929.20(J)(2). See Gilbert, supra, at ¶ 20. The State’s sole assignment of error is

sustained.

                                    Conclusion

       {¶10} Having found error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Union County Court of Common Pleas is

reversed. This cause of action is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

                                                               Judgment Reversed
                                                             And Cause Remanded

ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.

/hls

                                         -7-