State v. Patterson , 2021 Ohio 3959 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2021-Ohio-3959.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2021-01-004
: OPINION
- vs - 11/8/2021
:
JOSEPH CALVIN PATTERSON, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2020-02-0321
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Willa Concannon, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Repper-Pagan Law, Ltd., and Christopher Pagan, for appellant.
BYRNE, J.
{¶1} Joseph Patterson appeals from the judgment entry of sentence entered by
the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons described below, we affirm
Patterson's sentence.
I. Factual and Procedural Summary
{¶2} In June 2020, a Butler County grand jury indicted Patterson on one count of
aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree felony. Patterson subsequently pleaded
Butler CA2021-01-004
guilty to the count.
{¶3} In the judgment entry of sentence, the court found that Patterson was not
amenable to community control sanctions. Noting that at the time of the offense Patterson
was serving or had previously served a prison term and that he violated a term or condition
of bond by failing to appear for an earlier sentencing date, the court sentenced Patterson
to 12 months of incarceration. The court additionally specified that this time would be
served in the Butler County jail pursuant to R.C. 2929.34.
{¶4} The judgment entry informed Patterson that he could be subject to up to a
maximum of three years of postrelease control upon his release from incarceration. Finally,
the court ordered Patterson to pay the "costs of prosecution, supervision and any
supervision fees permitted pursuant to Revised Code Section 2929.18(A)(4)."
{¶5} Patterson appeals, raising one assignment of error.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶7} THE TRIAL COURT'S COSTS ORDER WAS UNLAWFUL.
{¶8} Patterson presents two issues within this assignment of error. First, he argues
that his sentence was unlawful because, even though the trial court declined to impose
prison confinement costs, Butler County, as his jailer, could potentially seek to recover from
him the costs of his confinement. Second, he argues that the court erred by imposing
supervision costs.
A. Standard of Review
{¶9} An appellate court reviews an imposed felony sentence according to R.C.
2953.08(G)(2). State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 27. R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court can modify or vacate a sentence only if the
appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the
-2-
Butler CA2021-01-004
trial court's findings under certain statutes, which are not at issue in this appeal, or that the
sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶10} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court
"considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C.
2929.12, properly imposes postrelease control, and sentences the defendant within the
permissible statutory range." State v. Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-100, 2016-
Ohio-2890, ¶ 8.
B. Confinement Costs
{¶11} As Patterson points out, the trial court declined to impose confinement costs
in the judgment entry of sentence. Patterson does not challenge the decision to not impose
confinement costs.
{¶12} Instead, Patterson argues that under separate statutes involving the Targeted
Community Alternatives to Prison program ("TCAP"), he could potentially be ordered to pay
Butler County the costs of his confinement.1 He points to R.C. 2929.37(A), which authorizes
a board of county commissioners, in an agreement with the sheriff, to adopt a policy that
requires a prisoner of a local detention facility to pay all or part of the costs of confinement
in that facility. Patterson argues TCAP and R.C. 2929.37(A) expose him to the potential of
paying confinement costs even where the trial court declined to order him to pay such costs
in the judgment entry of sentence. He also contends that TCAP provides for a double
recovery by Butler County, in that the county is paid by the state to confine Patterson, but
it can later seek to have him pay the costs of his confinement. Finally, he argues that
recovery of confinement costs under TCAP, which does not require consideration of a
1. R.C. 2929.34(B)(3)(c) governs TCAP and provides, with certain exceptions, that no person sentenced by
the court of common pleas of a "voluntary county" to a prison term for a fifth-degree felony shall serve the
prison term in an institution under the control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, but
shall instead serve the sentence as a term of confinement in a local facility such as a county jail or community-
based correctional facility.
-3-
Butler CA2021-01-004
defendant's ability to pay, would be unlawful because the trial court here declined to impose
confinement costs, and if it had done so it would have been required to consider his ability
to pay under R.C. 2929.18(A)(5)(a)(ii). In other words, Patterson argues that a potential
confinement costs order under TCAP would bypass the R.C. 2929.18(A)(5)(a)(ii)
requirement that the trial court consider a defendant's ability to pay.
{¶13} However, as Patterson concedes, the sentencing court did not impose
confinement costs. The sentencing entry from which Patterson appeals is silent on this
issue. Patterson's concerns regarding potentially being required to pay TCAP confinement
costs under R.C. 2929.37(A) in the future are entirely speculative and are not based on any
provision of the sentencing entry. Therefore, Patterson does not present any error in the
judgment for this court to "review and affirm, modify, or reverse." App.R. 12(A)(1)(a).
Patterson fails to raise any error in the judgment he is appealing, and this court will not
address alleged errors occurring outside the judgment appealed. See In re B. Children,
12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2007-06-077, 2008-Ohio-354, ¶ 26 (declining to address alleged
errors not addressed by the trial court's judgment); see also Waterford Pointe Condominium
Assn. v. Reserve Domiciles, Ltd., 9th Dist. Summit No. CV-2015-01-0624, 2019-Ohio-691,
¶ 33. This issue is not ripe for review. State v. McCarty, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-04-
093, 2007-Ohio-2290, ¶ 15 "'For a cause to be justiciable, there must exist a real
controversy presenting issues which are ripe for judicial resolution and which will have a
direct and immediate impact on the parties.'" Id. quoting State v. Stambaugh, 34 Ohio St.3d
34, 38 (1987) (Douglas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), citing Burger Brewing
Co. v. Liquor Control Comm., 34 Ohio St.2d 93, 97-98 (1973).
C. Supervision Costs
{¶14} Next, Patterson argues that the court erred by ordering him to pay the costs
of any postrelease control supervision where he was ordered to serve the maximum prison
-4-
Butler CA2021-01-004
sentence and was not ordered to submit to community control. The state argues that while
Patterson was not sentenced to community control, his sentence stated that he may be
subject to postrelease control and that supervision costs in conjunction with Patterson's
postrelease control are authorized by R.C. 2929.18(A).
{¶15} Upon review, we agree that supervision costs are authorized in conjunction
with postrelease control. Under R.C. 2929.18(A), the court imposing sentence upon a
felony offender may sentence the offender to "any financial sanction or combination of
financial sanctions authorized under this section * * *." Included among those authorized
financial sanctions is "any or all of the costs of sanctions incurred by the government."
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.18(A)(5)(a). The statute goes on to list some examples of
such sanctions, including the costs of implementing any community control sanction,
including a supervision fee, the costs of confinement, and the costs related to an
immobilizing device. R.C. 2929.18(A)(5)(a)(i),(ii), and (iii). However, as stated, these are
examples. The language in the statute does not preclude a court from imposing other costs
of sanctions incurred by the government. Supervision fees related to postrelease control
are within the ambit of "any or all of the costs of sanctions incurred by the government."
R.C. 2929.18(A). Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not err in imposing
supervision costs.
III. Conclusion
{¶16} Patterson has failed to demonstrate error in the judgment with respect to the
issue of confinement costs. And the court did not err in imposing the costs of supervision
in conjunction with postrelease control. The trial court considered the principles and
purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposed
postrelease control, and sentenced Patterson within the permissible statutory range.
Therefore, Patterson's sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. We
-5-
Butler CA2021-01-004
overrule his sole assignment of error.
{¶17} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
-6-