State v. Arrendondo , 2023 Ohio 491 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Arrendondo, 2023-Ohio-491.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 3-22-30
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
NICKOLAS ARRENDONDO, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2015-CR-0367
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: February 21, 2023
APPEARANCES:
Kyle Phillips for Appellant
Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee
Case No. 3-22-30
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Nickolas Arrendondo (“Arrendondo”) brings this
appeal from the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Crawford County revoking
his judicial release community control and reimposing the remainder of the prison
sentence. On appeal Arrendondo claims that the trial court erred by reimposing the
prison sentence rather than allowing him to remain on community control. For the
reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On February 8, 2016, the trial court held a sentencing hearing in which
it found that Arrendondo had previously been convicted after entering pleas of
guilty to 1) Illegal Assembly or Possession of Chemicals for the Manufacture of
Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.041, a felony of the third degree; 2) Illegal
Manufacture of Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.04(C)(2)(b), a felony of the second
degree; 3) Possession of Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(1)(a), a felony of
the fifth degree; and 4) Having Weapons Under Disability in violation of R.C.
2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree. Doc. 16. The trial court ordered
Arrendondo to serve an agreed aggregate sentence of eleven years in prison. Doc.
16.
{¶3} On April 13, 2021, Arrendondo filed a motion for judicial release. Doc.
25. The State did not object to the release after Arrendondo had served five and a
half years. Doc. 26. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on June 7, 2021,
-2-
Case No. 3-22-30
at which the trial court granted the motion for judicial release. Doc. 28. The trial
court then suspended the remainder of Arrendondo’s prison sentence and placed
him on community control for a period of five years. Doc. 28.
{¶4} On February 1, 2022, a motion was filed alleging that Arrendondo had
violated a condition of his community control by admitting to using
methamphetamines and then testing positive for the use of methamphetamines on
multiple occasions. Doc. 30. A hearing on the violations was held on July 18, 2022.
Doc. 45. At the hearing, Arrendondo admitted to the violations. Doc. 45. The trial
court then revoked Arrendondo’s judicial release and reimposed the original
sentence. Doc. 45. Arrendondo appealed from this judgment and raises the
following assignments of error on appeal. Doc. 49.
First Assignment of Error
The trial court erred and abused its discretion by reimposing a
prison sentence, contrary to R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, the
principles and purposes of felony sentencing, by not allowing Mr.
Arrendondo to remain on community control.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court erred and abused its discretion in violation of R.C.
2929.13(E)(2), when it revoked Mr. Arrendondo’s community
control and reimposed his prison sentence.
{¶5} Initially, this Court notes that Arrendondo was not placed on
community control as a sanction, but upon judicial release where the prison term
that had been imposed was suspended. “A trial court's decision to revoke a
-3-
Case No. 3-22-30
defendant's judicial release based on a violation of the conditions of
his judicial release will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” State v.
Thompson, 3d Dist. Crawford Nos. 3-16-01 and 3-16-12, 2016-Ohio-8401, ¶ 11.
The rules which apply to the violation of community control imposed as the original
sentence under R.C. 2929.15 should not be confused with the provisions applied to
judicial release under R.C. 2929.20, even though “R.C. 2929.20(K) confusingly
uses the term ‘community control’ in reference to the status of an offender granted
judicial release.” State v. Lammie, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-21-12, 2022-Ohio-419,
¶ 10. Ohio’s judicial release statute provides in pertinent part as follows.
If the court grants a motion for judicial release under this section,
the court shall order the release of the eligible offender, shall place
the eligible offender under an appropriate community control
sanction, under appropriate conditions, and under the
supervision of the department of probation serving the court and
shall reserve the right to reimpose the sentence that it reduced if
the offender violates the sanction. If the court reimposes the
reduced sentence, it may do so either concurrently with, or
consecutive to, any new sentence imposed upon the eligible
offender as a result of the violation that is a new offense.
R.C. 2929.20(K).
{¶6} This Court in Lammie, supra, recently addressed the options a trial court
has when a defendant has violated the terms of his or her judicial release imposed
community control sanctions. In Lammie we held that if a defendant violated the
conditions of his or her judicial release, the trial court was limited to reimposing the
original sentence with credit for time served. Lammie at ¶ 12. “The trial court may
-4-
Case No. 3-22-30
not alter the defendant’s original sentence except to reimpose the sentence
consecutively to or concurrently with a new sentence it imposes as a result of the
judicial release violation that is a new criminal offense.” Id. quoting State v. Jones,
3d Dist. Mercer Nos. 10-07-26 and 10-07-27, 2008-Ohio-2117, ¶ 15.
{¶7} Here, Arrendondo first argues that the trial court erred by not properly
considering the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and
the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. However, because the trial court is
limited to reimposing the remainder of the original sentence if the judicial release is
revoked, the trial court is not required to reconsider R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12
or make any statutory findings that would be required when a felony sentence is
originally imposed. Thompson, supra at ¶ 14 and State v. Mann, 3d Dist. Crawford
No. 3-03-42, 2004-Ohio-4703, ¶ 16. Additionally, the trial court in its journal entry
indicated that it did consider R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, even though this was
not required. Doc. 45 at 1. Thus, the first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶8} Arrendondo next argues that the trial court erred by imposing a prison
term for the violation in contradiction of R.C. 2929.13(E)(2). This statute prohibits
a trial court from imposing a prison term for violation of a sanction if the violation
is for producing a positive drug screen or a minor drug possession offense. This
Court has previously determined that R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) sanctions are not
applicable when a trial court is revoking a defendant’s judicial release. Thompson,
supra at ¶ 15. As R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) does not apply in cases where judicial release
-5-
Case No. 3-22-30
imposed community control is violated, the trial court did not err by failing to
comply with it. The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶9} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Crawford County
is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.
/hls
-6-