State v. Yates

¶1We adopt the decision of the court of appeals, which decision is attached as an Appendix to this opinion, and affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reasons stated therein.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

¶3Appendix

¶4The defendant-appellant, Michael C. Yates, was charged in two separate indictments with four counts of gross sexual imposition. In response to the first indictment (C.P. No. B-834524), the defendant entered a plea of no contest and was found guilty as charged. In response to the second indictment (C.P. No. B-840328), the defendant requested a bench trial and was subsequently found guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition (a third count was dismissed).

¶5On April 4, 1984, the defendant was sentenced to a two-year term of imprisonment on each of the two counts in case No. B-840328. The trial court also sentenced the defendant to two years’ incarceration for his conviction in case No.. B-834524. The trial court then suspended execution of the sentences and placed the defendant on probation for a period of four and one-half years. In addition, the defendant was ordered to serve two consecutive one-hundred-eighty-day terms of incarceration in the Community Correctional Institute (“CCI”).

¶6On March 11, 1985, the trial judge granted a motion to mitigate the sentences and the defendant was released from CCI nine days early. On November 22, 1988, an entry was placed of record declaring the defendant to be an absconder. A charge of probation violation was filed against the defendant on December 7, 1988, and a hearing was conducted on the matter five days later. A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was made at that time and was overruled. The defendant was subsequently found guilty of violating the terms of his probation.1 The trial judge terminated defendant’s probationary term and imposed the sentences previously suspended. The defendant now appeals.

¶7In his sole assignment of error, the defendant alleges the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss the probation violation charge for lack of jurisdiction. We agree.

¶8Our review of the record reveals that the defendant was placed on probation for a period of four and one-half years. This term of probation began on April 4, 1984 and ended on October 4, 1988. The entry declaring the defendant an absconder was not placed of record until November 22,1988. There were no other alleged violations prior to this entry and the probationary period was not extended.2

¶9*80Accordingly, because the state failed to initiate probation violation proceedings during the original probation period, we conclude that the trial court lost its jurisdiction to impose the suspended sentences once the term of probation expired. State v. Simpson (1981), 2 Ohio App. 3d 40, 2 OBR 44, 440 N.E. 2d 617.

¶10The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the defendant is discharged from further proceedings concerning the probation violation charge lodged against him.

¶11Judgment accordingly.