.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
SENECA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 13-23-18
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DYLAN J. WARNICK, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Seneca County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 23-CR-0079
Judgment Reversed
Date of Decision: December 11, 2023
APPEARANCES:
John M. Kahler II for Appellant
Stephanie J. Kiser for Appellee
Case No. 13-23-18
WALDICK, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Dylan J. Warnick, brings this appeal from the July
10, 2023, judgment of the Seneca County Common Pleas Court sentencing him to
12 months in prison after he pled guilty to, and was convicted of, Gross Sexual
Imposition. On appeal, Warnick argues that the trial court erred by sentencing him
to prison and imposing a community control sanction on him by ordering that he
have no-contact with the victim. The State agrees with Warnick that the trial court
erred and urges reversal. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the
trial court.
Background
{¶2} Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Warnick pled guilty to Gross
Sexual Imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), a fourth degree felony. The
parties jointly recommended a 12-month prison term, and that prison term was
imposed by the trial court.
{¶3} On July 10, 2023, the trial court filed its final judgment entry
memorializing Warnick’s prison term. As part of the entry, the trial court also
ordered Warnick to have “absolutely NO CONTACT with the victim in this case *
… in person, by telephone, mail or by third party.”
{¶4} Warnick appeals the trial court’s judgment, asserting the following
assignment of error for our review.
-2-
Case No. 13-23-18
Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to both a prison
sentence and a community control sanction.
{¶5} Generally, a no-contact order is a community control sanction. State v.
Anderson,
. The Supreme Court of Ohio has
specifically held that a trial court may not impose a prison sentence on a defendant
and also impose a community control sanction such as a no-contact order on a
defendant for that same offense. Id. at ¶ 32. As the trial court imposed both a prison
term and a community control sanction on Warnick for the same offense, the
judgment of the trial court is reversed under the authority of Anderson with
instructions to vacate the no-contact order.
Conclusion
{¶6} Having found prejudicial error to Warnick in the particulars assigned
and argued, the judgment of the Seneca County Common Pleas Court is reversed.
Judgment Reversed
WILLAMOWSKI and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur
/eks
-3-
