State v. Rutschilling

[Cite as State v. Rutschilling, 2018-Ohio-3614.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
MERCER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 10-18-06
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
AARON N. RUTSCHILLING, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Mercer County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 14-CRM-060
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: September 10, 2018
APPEARANCES:
Bryan Scott Hicks for Appellant
Matthew K. Fox and Joshua A. Muhlenkamp for Appellee
Case No. 10-18-06
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Aaron N. Rutschilling (“Rutschilling”) brings this
appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County
sentencing him to consecutive sentences for violation of community control
sanctions. Rutschilling claims that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive
sentences when the trial court did not inform him at the prior sentencing that this
was a possibility. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On May 15, 2014, the Mercer County Grand Jury indicted Rutschilling
on one count of trafficking in marijuana in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1),
(C)(3)(a), (C)(3)(b), a felony of the fourth degree. Doc. 6. Rutschilling entered a
plea of not guilty. Doc. 21. On December 11, 2014, Rutschilling filed a motion for
intervention in lieu of conviction for the indicted charge as well as an expected
charge for possession of heroin. Doc. 39. On January 7, 2015, the State filed a bill
of information alleging an additional charge that Rutschilling had possessed heroin
on or about April 19, 2014, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(6)(a), a felony of
the fifth degree. Doc. 40. On March 25, 2015, Rutschilling and the State entered
into a negotiated plea agreement. Doc. 78. Rutschilling agreed to enter pleas of
guilty to an amended indictment count of trafficking in marijuana in violation of
R.C. 2925.03(A)(1); (C)(3)(a), a felony of the fifth degree, and one count of
possession of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A); (C)(6)(a), a felony of the fifth
degree, as charged in the bill of information. Id. Rutschilling also agreed to waive
-2-
Case No. 10-18-06
prosecution by indictment and consented to be prosecuted by the bill of information.
Id. In exchange, the State agreed to amend the trafficking in marijuana charge from
a fourth degree felony to a fifth degree felony. Id. The State also agreed not to
oppose intervention in lieu of conviction. Id. No sentencing agreement was
reached. Id. On March 20, 2015, an arraignment on the possession of heroin charge
and a change of plea hearing on the amended trafficking in marijuana charge was
held. Doc. 83. At that time, Rutschilling entered pleas of guilty pursuant to the
negotiated plea agreement. Id. The trial court accepted the pleas of guilty and
scheduled sentencing for a later date. Id.{¶3} On May 27, 2015, a sentencing hearing was held. Doc. 101. The trial
court sentenced Rutschilling to a term of community control for up to three years.
Doc. 101. The trial court informed Rutschilling that if he violated the sanctions, he
could receive “a prison term of Eleven (11) months on each count.” Id. at 7. The
judgment entry was silent as to whether the terms would be served concurrently or
consecutively. Id.
{¶4} On February 8, 2017, the State filed a notice of failure to comply with
community control sanctions. Doc. 119. The notice alleged that Rutschilling had
been arrested for OVI, had tested positive for fentanyl and marijuana, and had failed
to take drug tests when requested. Id. A hearing was held on the violations on
March 22, 2017. Doc. 134. Rutschilling admitted the violations and the matter was
-3-
Case No. 10-18-06
set for disposition. Id. The disposition hearing was held on April 12, 2017. At the
hearing the trial court sentenced Rutschilling to consecutive sentences. Id.
Rutschilling appealed the sentences claiming that the trial court had failed to make
the required statutory findings among other issues. Doc. 147. This court sustained
the assignment of error regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences without
the required findings and remanded the matter for resentencing. State v.
Rutschilling, 3d Dist. Mercer Nos. 10-17-06, 10-17-07, 2017-Ohio-9252.
{¶5} On January 31, 2018, a new sentencing hearing was held. Doc. 185.
The trial court imposed a prison term of 11 months on each count and ordered them
served consecutive to each other. Id. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court made
the following findings in regard to the consecutive sentences.
[T]he Court must make findings to impose the two, 11-month
sentences in this case to run consecutively, and the Court does so
at this time by finding and stating that based upon those
sentencing factors, and the situation as it presently exists,
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from
future crimes of the – by the offender and not disproportionate to
the seriousness of his conduct and to the danger that he poses to
the public, and that two of the multiple offenses were committed
as part of one or more courses of conduct. Obviously, this being
a separate offense with the possession of cocaine. The harm
caused by the two offenses so committed was at least unusual and
great that, enough, to make it so that no single prison term for
either of these offenses committed, as part of these courses of
conduct, adequately reflect the seriousness of this conduct. And
therefore, the Court will impose the 22-month prison term for this
case.
-4-
Case No. 10-18-06
Jan. 31, 2018, Tr. 8. Rutschilling appeals from this judgment and raises the
following assignment of error.
The imposition of consecutive sentences was invalid.
{¶6} On appeal, Rutschilling claims that the trial court erred by imposing
consecutive sentences when he was not informed at the time of the imposition of
community control sanctions that the sentences would be ordered to be served
consecutively. This court has recently addressed this exact issue in State v.
Davenport, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-18-05, 2018-Ohio-3319. In Davenport, the
defendant argued that the trial court failed to reserve the power to impose
consecutive sentences in the event that he violated his community control. Id. at ¶
27. As in this case, Davenport was told that he would be subject to a prison term on
each count and he claimed that was not sufficient to provide him notice that he
would be subject to consecutive prison terms. Id. This court determined that the
“phrases ‘each offense’ and ‘two, 24-month sentences’ clearly indicate the
imposition of consecutive sentences.” Id. at ¶ 31. Thus, this court determined that
the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences for a subsequent
violation of community control. Id. at ¶ 34.
{¶7} Here, as in Davenport, Rutschilling was notified that a violation of
community control sanctions “will result in prison terms of 11 months on each
offense.” May 27, 2015, Tr. at 10. The trial court also advised Rutschilling that he
could be placed on post-release control and that a violation of that could result in
-5-
Case No. 10-18-06
him being “returned to prison for up to one-half of each of those 11-month
sentences.” Id. Additionally, the negotiated plea agreement signed by Rutschilling
advised him that although consecutive sentences were not mandatory, they could be
imposed. Doc. 78. Although it might have been a better practice to state that it
would be an aggregate 22-month sentence, this court does not find that the sentence
was improper in this case. The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶8} Having found no error in the particulars assigned and argued, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW and PRESTON, J.J., concur.
/hls
-6-