.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 103814
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
DARNELL BOND
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-15-596915-A
BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., E.A. Gallagher, P.J., and McCormack, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 7, 2016
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Steve W. Canfil
55 Public Square, Suite 2100
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Glen Ramdhan
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Justice Center - 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Appellant Darnell Bond appeals from his sentence, claiming the trial court failed to
accurately notify him of the specific length of the community control sanction imposed, failed to
satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2929.19(B)(4), and issued a flawed journal entry. The state has
conceded error. Upon review, we reverse and remand the matter for resentencing and correction
of the journal entry.
{¶2} The instant appeal is taken from Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-596915-A. Appellant was
indicted on three counts. He pled guilty to one count of escape in violation of R.C.
2921.34(A)(3), and an amended count of attempted menacing by stalking in violation of R.C.
2923.02 and 2903.211(A)(1). The remaining count of the indictment was nolled. The escape
charge related to appellant’s failure to comply with the conditions of his community control
sanctions imposed in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-587375-A. The matter proceeded to a hearing for
the sentencing in CR-596915 and the violation of community control sanctions in CR-587375.
{¶3} In sentencing appellant in CR-596915, the trial court placed appellant on probation
and ordered him to serve 180 days in county jail with credit for time served, but stated the court
would “keep the case on probation open.” The court reserved the right to place appellant in
prison for “up to 12 months” for a probation violation.
{¶4} For appellant’s violation of community control sanctions in CR-587375, the court
ordered appellant to serve six months in a community-based correctional facility and extended
the period of his community control sanctions, which had been due to expire on December 31,
2016, until December 31, 2018. The court warned appellant that if he violated probation in that
case, he could be placed in prison.
{¶5} Thereafter, the court provided conflicting statements regarding the length of the
community control sanction imposed in CR-596915. The court indicated that the probation term
in CR-596915 would be ending December 30, 2015. However, the court then indicated: “Same
for both. And the maximum would have been 12/30/19, so he’ll be on probation for a total of
four years while he’s in the county jail, and while he’s in CBCF, that counts toward his probation
obligation.”
{¶6} The resulting journal entry in CR-596915 states in relevant part:
[Defendant] is sentenced to the Cuyahoga County Jail for a term of 180 day(s).
Defendant ordered to serve 180 days in county jail for Counts 1 & 2, followed by
CBCF as ordered in CR 587375. Counts 1 and 2 concurrent; community control
sanctions until 12/31/2015, to match CR 587375. … Violations of conditions
may result in prison term of 12 months.
The parties concede that the journal entry for CR-587375 reflects that appellant’s community
control sanctions were extended to December 30, 2018.
{¶7} Appellant claims the trial court failed to accurately inform appellant that he would
be subject to community control sanctions until December 31, 2018, and failed to place in the
sentencing journal entry an accurate statement of the length of time that appellant was subject to
community control sanctions. The state concedes that the conflicting statements were confusing
regarding the length of the community control sanction imposed.
{¶8} Also, a trial court is required to notify the defendant of the specific prison term that
may be imposed as a sanction for a violation of a community control sanction in order to comply
with R.C. 2929.19(B)(4). See State v. Brooks,
(interpreting former analogous R.C. 2929.19(B)(5)).
{¶9} R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) provides 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 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.
(Emphasis added.) The trial court did not comply with the statute in this case.
{¶10} Upon our review, we sustain the sole assignment of error. The case is remanded
to the trial court for resentencing. The trial court shall advise appellant of the proper length of
community control, notify him of the specific prison term that may be imposed if the conditions
are violated, and correct the journal entry.
{¶11} Judgment reversed; case remanded.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed. The court finds
there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas
court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR
