State v. Faulkner , 2018 Ohio 3824 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Faulkner, 2018-Ohio-3824.]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    WOOD COUNTY
    State of Ohio                                            Court of Appeals No. WD-17-048
    Appellee                                         Trial Court No. 2017CR0086
    v.
    Jake W. Faulkner, III                                    DECISION AND JUDGMENT
    Appellant                                        Decided: September 21, 2018
    *****
    Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and
    David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
    Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
    *****
    JENSEN, J.
    I. Introduction
    {¶ 1} Appellant, Jake Faulkner, III, appeals the judgment of the Wood County
    Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to 30 months in prison after he pleaded guilty to
    one count of failure to comply. Because we find that the trial court properly imposed an
    additional consecutive prison sentence of 1,387 days based upon appellant’s violation of
    a postrelease control sentence that was lawfully imposed under the then-existing law, we
    affirm.
    A. Facts and Procedural Background
    {¶ 2} On March 10, 2017, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to a charge of
    failure to comply in violation of R.C. 2921.331(b)(c)(5)(a)(ii), a felony of the third
    degree. Following pretrial proceedings, appellant appeared before the trial court on July
    14, 2017, and entered a plea of guilty to the aforementioned charge. Appellant’s
    sentencing hearing was held September 1, 2017, at which time the following facts were
    established.
    {¶ 3} On February 16, 2017, appellant failed to stop his car when signaled by
    police in Wood County. Instead, appellant led police on a high speed chase that lasted 30
    miles, while traveling at speeds in excess of 100 m.p.h. After crashing his vehicle,
    appellant fled on foot before being apprehended.
    {¶ 4} At sentencing, appellant was ordered to serve 30 months in the Ohio
    Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. The court also added another 1,387 days
    of prison pursuant to its finding that appellant violated the terms of his postrelease
    control, which was imposed in connection with a January 2006 conviction from Lucas
    County in case No. CR0200502719. Thereafter, appellant filed a timely appeal.
    2.
    B. Assignment of Error
    {¶ 5} On appeal, appellant presents the following assignment of error:
    The Trial Court erred to the prejudice of the appellant by imposing
    1,387 days of postrelease control based on a judgement entry that did not
    meet the requirements of State v. Grimes.
    II. Analysis
    {¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred
    when it imposed the additional 1,387-day prison sentence stemming from his violation of
    the terms of postrelease control under case No. CR0200502719. Appellant argues that
    the postrelease control should be vacated because the 2006 judgment entry does not
    comply with the following language provided by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v.
    Grimes:
    [T]o validly impose postrelease control when the court orally
    provides all the required advisements at the sentencing hearing, the
    sentencing entry must contain the following information: (1) whether
    postrelease control is discretionary or mandatory, (2) the duration of the
    postrelease-control period, and (3) a statement to the effect that the Adult
    Parole Authority (“APA”) will administer the postrelease control pursuant
    to R.C. 2967.28 and that any violation by the offender of the conditions of
    postrelease control will subject the offender to the consequences set forth in
    3.
    that statute. State v. Grimes, 
    151 Ohio St. 3d 19
    , 2017-Ohio-2927, 
    85 N.E.3d 700
    , ¶ 1.
    {¶ 7} Concerning postrelease control, appellant notes that the 2006 judgment entry
    merely states: “Defendant given notice of appellate rights under R.C. 2953.08 and post
    release control notice under R.C. 2929.19(b)(3) and R.C. 2967.28.” Since the 2006 entry
    failed to meet the requirements of Grimes, appellant argues that the postrelease control
    sentence stemming from his 2006 conviction is void and must be vacated.
    {¶ 8} Notably, we have previously held that Grimes does not apply retroactively to
    matters not pending on the date Grimes was announced. State v. Madrid, 6th Dist. Lucas
    No. L-17-1299, 2018-Ohio-1873, ¶ 16; compare State v. Harper, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
    17AP-762, 2018-Ohio-2529, ¶ 15 (applying Grimes retroactively). Appellant’s 2006
    conviction was final long before Grimes was announced. Moreover, appellant does not
    argue that the trial court’s original imposition of postrelease control was defective under
    the body of case law that applied when he was sentenced in 2006. Therefore, we find no
    merit to appellant’s assertion that the trial court in this case erred in imposing an
    additional sentence upon its conclusion that appellant had violated the terms of his
    postrelease control.
    {¶ 9} Accordingly, we find appellant’s sole assignment of error not well-taken.
    4.
    III. Conclusion
    {¶ 10} In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the Wood County Court of
    Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant
    to App.R. 24.
    Judgment affirmed.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
    See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
    Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.                       _______________________________
    JUDGE
    James D. Jensen, J.
    _______________________________
    Christine E. Mayle, P.J.                                   JUDGE
    CONCUR.
    _______________________________
    JUDGE
    5.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WD-17-048

Citation Numbers: 2018 Ohio 3824

Judges: Jensen

Filed Date: 9/21/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2018