State v. Rork , 2020 Ohio 2927 ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Rork, 2020-Ohio-2927.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NOS. C-190236
C-190237
Plaintiff-Appellee, : TRIAL NOS. 17CRB-31621
18TRC-21405B
vs. :
CLAYTON RORK, : O P I N I O N.
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgments Appealed From Are: Reversed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 13, 2020
Paula Boggs Muething, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Interim City Prosecutor,
and Jon Vogt, Assistant Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant
Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BERGERON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} After a trial court imposes a valid criminal sentence, it cannot modify
that sentence absent some statutory authority. The trial court here encountered the
defendant on an alleged community control violation, but properly recognized that
he had not committed a violation. Nevertheless, the trial court proceeded to
resentence him anyway, trespassing the limits of its jurisdiction. The state here
concedes the error, and we agree and accordingly reverse.
{¶2} In early February 2019, defendant-appellant Clayton Rork pleaded
guilty in Hamilton County Municipal Court to receiving stolen property pursuant to
R.C. 2913.51 and operating a vehicle while intoxicated in violation of R.C. 4511.19
(“OVI”). In exchange for his pleas, other pending charges were dismissed. After
accepting his guilty pleas, the trial court sentenced Mr. Rork to (among other things)
180 days’ confinement on each conviction, but suspended the sentences and credited
him 15 days on each. Rather than go to jail for the remaining 165 days on each
sentence, the court mandated that he participate in 11 months of community control.
After receiving his sentences, the court informed Mr. Rork to report to the probation
department the next morning.
{¶3} Duly reporting as instructed, Mr. Rork arrived, but an odor of alcohol
surrounding him sparked an inquiry by the probation officer, which resulted in Mr.
Rork’s admission to imbibing a couple of beers the night before. Convinced that this
violated his community control, the officer cited Mr. Rork, which ultimately landed
him back in municipal court.
{¶4} Mr. Rork appeared to address the violation in March 2019, but the
trial court quickly withdrew the alleged violation as “it appear[ed] defendant showed
up with alcohol on his breath, allegedly * * * but there was no probation condition
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
ordering no alcohol, and defendant had not yet signed [the] rules anyway.” Despite
that withdrawal, the matter did not end there, as the court queried Mr. Rork:
“[W]hat would show in your breath, blood or urine today if you had to produce?”
Mr. Rork conceded that he would test positive for alcohol and admitted, “I think I
need detox[.]” Growing increasingly concerned about Mr. Rork’s ability to “detox”
while on community control, the court explained, “I am not at all comfortable in
putting him back on probation * * * when we find ourselves in the exact situation we
found ourselves with Mr. Rork [a month ago], which is, reporting to probation
having consumed alcohol the night before.” The court then announced it would
“resentence” Mr. Rork, finding him to be a risk to himself and others. Over objection,
the court ordered Mr. Rork to serve 165 days in jail on each of his sentences and
denied defense counsel’s request for a stay.
{¶5} Mr. Rork now appeals, raising a single assignment of error challenging
the trial court’s jurisdiction to “resentence” him after a valid judgment of conviction
and absent any appropriate statutory authority. The state concedes the error.
{¶6} This case implicates a trial court’s ability to revisit its own valid
judgment of conviction. While we understand the trial court’s concern here about
Mr. Rork, trial courts generally may not reconsider a valid final judgment in a
criminal case. See State v. Johnson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130435, 2014-Ohio-
1751, ¶ 3; State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350, 2012-Ohio-5636, 982 N.E.2d 684,
paragraph one of the syllabus (“A trial court lacks authority to reconsider a final
judgment in a criminal case.”). Moreover, a criminal sentence attains finality when a
court enters a judgment of conviction satisfying Crim.R. 32, setting forth (1) the fact
of conviction, (2) the sentence, (3) the signature of the judge and (4) entry on the
journal by the clerk of court. See State v. Carlisle, 131 Ohio St.3d 127, 2011-Ohio-
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
6553, 961 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 11. Surveying the record at hand, the trial court’s February
12 entries on the OVI and receiving stolen property charges satisfy these
requirements. See Cincinnati v. Walker, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-070770, 2008-
Ohio-4473, ¶ 5 (explaining use of “judge’s sheet” in Hamilton County Municipal
Court).
{¶7} Therefore, after that entry, the trial court lacked authority to
reconsider these sentences. See Carlisle at ¶ 1 (“Absent statutory authority, a trial
court is generally not empowered to modify a criminal sentence by reconsidering its
own final judgment.”); see R.C. 2929.25. Moreover, absent a finding that Mr. Rork
violated his community control, the court was not authorized to revoke it. See State
v. Oglesby, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-180177 and C-180178, 2019-Ohio-1456, ¶ 13
(upholding revocation of community control and imposition of suspended sentences
in misdemeanor cases where defendant violated terms of community control); Bay
Village v. Barringer, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102432, 2015-Ohio-4079, ¶ 8 (noting
that a court may modify community control sanctions imposed on a suspended jail
sentence only if the offender violates the terms of community control); State v.
Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108438, 2020-Ohio-1273, ¶ 17 (after defendant
violated the terms of his community control sanctions, the trial court terminated his
community control sanctions and reimposed the defendant’s jail sentence). If the
trial court here had found that Mr. Rork violated community control, that, of course,
would change the calculus. Instead, however, the trial court found to the contrary.
{¶8} Based on the foregoing, Mr. Rork’s sole assignment of error is
sustained. We accordingly reverse the trial court’s March 12, 2019 entries purporting
to resentence Mr. Rork.
Judgments reversed.
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, and WINKLER, J.J., concur.
5