State v. Meyer , 2012 Ohio 145 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. Meyer, 
    2012-Ohio-145
    .]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
    HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
    STATE OF OHIO,                             :   APPEAL NO. C-100502
    TRIAL NOS. 10CRB-3248
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                 :
    v.                                       :            O P I N I O N.
    JOHN A. MEYER,                             :
    Defendant-Appellant.                :
    Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
    Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause
    Remanded
    Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 18, 2012
    John Cupp, City Solicitor, Charlie Rubenstein, Interim City Prosecutor, and
    Jennifer Bishop, Assistant City Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
    Roger W. Kirk, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
    D INKELACKER , Presiding Judge.
    {¶1}    Defendant-appellant John A. Meyer was convicted, after entering
    pleas of no contest, of two counts of theft and one count of criminal trespass. At
    the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally imposed sentence on both theft
    counts, but failed to orally impose a sentence for the criminal-trespassing charge.
    The sentence for the charge, 30 days in the Hamilton County Justice Center,
    appeared on the judgment entry.
    {¶2}    Meyer argues, and we agree, that the trial court failed to properly
    impose the 30-day sentence for the criminal-trespassing charge. The state argues
    that Meyer was properly informed of the sentence when, during the hearing, he
    was told that the maximum penalty for the criminal-trespassing offense was 30
    days. But a trial court must orally impose a sentence for each offense on the
    record. The mention of the possible sentence is insufficient.
    {¶3}    For that reason, the sentence was not properly imposed on the
    trespassing charge. Meyer’s sole assignment of error is sustained. This cause is
    remanded to the trial court for it to properly impose a sentence on the criminal-
    trespassing charge.   In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is
    affirmed.
    Judgment affirmed in part,
    reversed in part,
    and cause remanded.
    HENDON and CUNNINGHAM, JJ., concur.
    2
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C-100502

Citation Numbers: 2012 Ohio 145

Judges: Dinkelacker

Filed Date: 1/18/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016