Criminal Appeal from the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FAIRFIELD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO v. JACKIE IMLER
APPEAL NO. 19-CA-21, 19-CA-22

Date of Judgement Entry on Appeal: January 15, 2020

Appeal of sentence from multiple cases.

In August 2015, Imler entered guilty pleas to child endangering, a felony of the third degree and illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, also a felony of the third degree.  The matter was docketed as Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas case number 15-CR-134.  The trial court imposed a prison term of 18 months for illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs and a 3-year term of community control for child endangering to be served consecutively to the prison term.  The trial court reserved the authority to impose an additional prison term of 12 months if Imler violated community control.

In November 2015, Imler was granted judicial release and began to serve the 3-year term of community control.

In May of 2017, Imler admitted to violating the terms of community control and entered a plea of guilty to a new bill of information for aggravated drug possession, a felony of the fifth degree. The latter charge was docketed as Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas case number 17-CR-219. 

In case number 15-CR-134, the trial court ordered Imler to serve the remainder of the 18-month prison term for illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs.  The trial court further ordered that Imler would remain on community control for the offense of child endangering.  In case number 17-CR-219, the trial court imposed a 3-year term of community control to be served consecutively to the sentence in 15-CR-134.  The trial court ordered the 3-year term of community control to be tolled while appellant was in prison and reserved the authority to order an 8-month term of imprisonment for a future violation of the terms of community control. 

In April of 2019, Imler again appeared before the trial court to admit violating the terms of community control.  The trial court thereupon imposed the reserved 12-month term and the reserved 8-month term for a total prison term of 20 months.

On appeal Imler argued that the trial court erred in imposing a community-control sanction on one or more felony counts to be served consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed upon one or more other felony counts.

The Ohio Supreme Court addressed this issue in State v. Hitchcock, 157 Ohio St.3d 215, 2019-Ohio-3246, 134 N.E.3d 164, at ¶ 24, stating that because no provision of the Revised Code authorizes trial courts to impose community-control sanctions on one felony count to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed on another felony count, trial courts may not do so.  Unless otherwise authorized by statute, a trial court may not impose community-control sanctions on one felony count to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed on another felony count.

The Fifth District reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter for re-sentencing consistent with Hitchcock, supra, 2019-Ohio3246 at ¶ 25.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO vs. JENNIFER CHANDLER
APPEAL NO. C-190153

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 22, 2020

Appeal of sentence pursuant to guilty pleas of extortion and attempted extortion. 

Chandler pled guilty to one count of extortion, a felony of the third degree, and one count of attempted extortion, a felony of the fourth degree.  Chandler was released on bond pending sentencing.  The trial court informed Chandler that “if you get into any kind of trouble or you don’t show up for sentencing, I will give you every single day I can in prison. Got it?”  Chandler failed to show for a pre-sentence investigation interview and failed to appear for sentencing.  A warrant for Chandler’s arrest was issued.  Chandler was ultimately arrested and sentenced to a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison for attempted extortion and a maximum sentence of 36 months in prison for extortion.  These sentences were imposed consecutive for a total of 54 months in prison.  To support the imposition of consecutive sentences, the trial court stated that “consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public and not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct or the danger the defendant poses to the public. The offender’s criminal history shows a need to protect the public.”  Chandler appealed and argued that the sentences were contrary to law.

On appeal, Chandler argued that the trial court gave undue weight to the failure to appear at sentencing when imposing maximum, consecutive sentences, and because it failed to consider the principles and purposes of sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

The First District held that a defendant’s failure to appear is an appropriate recidivism factor for the trial court to consider when determining whether to impose a maximum sentence.  Further First District found that the trial court correctly stated that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public; that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct or the danger posed to the public; and that the Defendant’s criminal history showed a need to protect the public. The First District court ruled that the sentences imposed were not contrary to law and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.