DocketNumber: No. 2-03-28.
Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 1206
Judges: CUPP, J.
Filed Date: 3/15/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} On May 2, 2000, Bayman was indicted in the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas on two counts of drug possession and one count of possession of a deadly weapon in a detention facility. Bayman ultimately pled guilty to one count of possession of a deadly weapon in a detention center, a felony of the fifth degree and was sentenced to five years community control.
{¶ 3} On June 10, 2003, the Auglaize County prosecutor filed a motion and affidavit alleging that Bayman had refused a drug screen, consumed alcohol and violated his curfew, all in violation of the conditions of community control. These allegations were later amended to include two additional violations, possession of cocaine and possession of amphetamines. A probable cause hearing on Bayman's violation of community control was set for July 29, 2003.
{¶ 4} At the hearing, Bayman admitted all five violations and the trial court found him guilty of violating the terms of his community control. The trial court sentenced Bayman to twelve months incarceration.
{¶ 5} It is from this decision that Bayman appeals, setting forth one assignment of error for our review.
{¶ 6} Bayman asserts that his sentence is contrary to law as the trial court did not follow the statutory sentencing procedures in imposing the maximum prison term because it failed to make the requisite findings mandated by R.C.
{¶ 7} In determining what sentence to impose upon a defendant, a trial court is required to make various factual findings on the record. A sentence that is not supported by such findings is both incomplete and invalid. See State v. Martin
(1999),
{¶ 8} When an offender violates the conditions of his community control, as is the case herein, the trial court has three options. Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 9} In the case sub judice, Bayman was sentenced to five years of community control for possession of a deadly weapon in a detention center, a violation of R.C.
{¶ 10} Prior to the sentencing guidelines proposed by Senate Bill No. 2, which became effective in 1996, a trial court could immediately revoke community control upon violation and impose any sentence that originally could have been imposed, without any further consideration. State v. Weaver
(B) [I]f the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for afelony elects * * * to impose a prison term on the offender * * *the court shall impose the shortest prison term authorized forthe offense * * * unless the court finds on the record that theshortest prison term will demean the seriousness of theoffender's conduct or will not adequately protect the public fromfuture crime by the offender or others. * * * (C) [T]he court imposing a sentence upon an offender for afelony may impose the longest prison term authorized for theoffense * * * only upon offenders who committed the worst formsof the offense, upon offenders who pose the greatest likelihoodof committing future crimes * * * . Emphasis added.
{¶ 11} The trial court herein failed to make the requisite findings as required by R.C.
{¶ 12} Accordingly, we cannot hold that the trial court herein made the findings required to sanction Bayman to the maximum term of incarceration for possession of a deadly weapon in a detention center. Because the court failed to make the required findings, the trial court erred and Bayman's sentence is contrary to law.
{¶ 13} Appellant's assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 14} Having found error prejudicial to appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Shaw, P.J., and Bryant, J., concur.