State v. Hefner

[Cite as State v. Hefner, 2018-Ohio-2344.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-17-44
v.
HARLEY J. HEFNER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR14-10-0228
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: June 18, 2018
APPEARANCES:
Eric J. Allen for Appellant
Sarah J. Warren for Appellee
Case No. 8-17-44
ZIMMERMAN, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Harley Hefner (“Hefner”), brings this appeal from
the October 17, 2017 judgment entry of the Logan County Common Pleas Court
revoking his community control and sentencing him to a seven-year prison term.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On October 14, 2014, Hefner was indicted on six criminal charges in
Logan County: Count One, Burglary, in violation of R.C. 2929.11(A)(2), a felony
of the second degree; Count Two, Burglary, in violation of R.C. 2929.11(A)(2), a
felony of the second degree; Count Three, Burglary, in violation of R.C.
2929.11(A)(2), a felony of the second degree; Count Four, Burglary, in violation of
R.C. 2929.11(A)(2), a felony of the second degree; Count Five, Burglary, in
violation of R.C. 2929.11(A)(2), a felony of the second degree; and Count Six,
Breaking and Entering, a violation of R.C. 2911.13(A), a felony of the fifth degree.
(Doc. 2).
{¶3} Ultimately, Hefner was convicted in the trial court of one count of
burglary and one count of breaking and entering. A sentencing hearing was held in
the trial court on February 9, 2015 wherein Hefner was sentenced to five years of
community control and was ordered to successfully complete a six-month
-2-
Case No. 8-17-44
residential program at West Central Community Corrections Facility. Further, in
its sentencing entry, the trial court notified Hefner as follows:
“Defendant is notified that any violation of the terms and
conditions of community control may result in the Court imposing
a longer time under the same sanction, or the Court may impose
a more restrictive sanction, or the Court may impose a prison
term of Six (6) years for the crime of Burglary and a prison term
of One (1) year for the crime of Breaking and Entering for a total
of Seven (7) years.” (Doc. 34).
Hefner did not appeal this entry.
{¶4} While on community control, Hefner’s probation officer filed several
motions to revoke Hefner’s community control, including one filed on July 27,
2017. In that motion, Hefner’s probation officer alleged that Heffner was in
possession of methamphetamines and amphetamines and resisted a lawful arrest by
law enforcement, all of which were in violation of the following community control
sanctions imposed upon Hefner by the trial court:
“I will obey federal, state and local laws and ordinances, including
those related to illegal drug use and registration with authorities.
* * *.” (Doc. 111, Exhibit A).
{¶5} The trial court conducted a community control violation hearing on
September 5, 2017, at which time Hefner admitted to violating his community
control. The trial court then proceeded to sentence Hefner to a prison term of six
years for the burglary conviction and one year for the breaking and entering
-3-
Case No. 8-17-44
conviction. The trial court ordered the prison terms to be served consecutively, for
an aggregate sentence of seven years. (Doc. 120).
{¶6} Hefner appealed the trial court’s sentence, raising the following
assignment of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE RECORD IN THIS MATTER DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES PURSUANT
TO STATE LAW R.C. 2929.14.
{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, Hefner argues that the sentences
imposed by the trial court were too harsh and that the trial court did not take into
consideration Hefner’s attempts at rehabilitation. We disagree.
Standard of Review
{¶8} A sentence imposed by a trial court will not be disturbed absent a
showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the
record; the procedure of the sentencing statutes was not followed or there was not a
sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary
to law. State v. Ward, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-17-02, 2017-Ohio-8518.
Analysis
{¶9} “‘The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the
authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give
its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.’” State v.
-4-
Case No. 8-17-44
Castle, 2nd Dist. Clark No. 2016-CA-16, 2016-Ohio-4974, ¶26, quoting State v.
King, 2nd Dist. Clark Nos. 2012-CA-25, 2012-CA-26 ¶ 45, 2013-Ohio-2021.
{¶10} At the time of the original sentence placing a defendant on community
control, the trial court must notify the defendant of the duration of the possible
prison term that could result if community control is violated. R.C. 2929.19(B)(4).
Following a community control violation, the trial court must comply with the
sentencing requirements when ordering a sentence for the violations. State v.
Fraley, 105 Ohio St. 3d 13, 2004-Ohio-7110, ¶17, citing State v. Martin, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 82140, 2003-Ohio-3381, ¶35. Our review of the record reveals that
Hefner was informed at his original sentencing hearing (held February 9, 2015) that
if he violated the terms of his community control, he could receive a total of seven
years in prison.
{¶11} At Hefner’s September 5, 2017 sentencing hearing for his violation of
community control, the trial court indicated that it had considered Hefner’s prior
criminal history, his multiple community control violations, his failed attempts at
rehabilitation, and the need to protect the public from Hefner. Additionally, the trial
court stated:
“In addition to the violations of substance abuse, your conduct in
causing other criminal charges to be placed against you has been
a factor to be considered. After review of all circumstances, the
Court finds that you are no longer amendable to community
control.” (Sept. 5, 2017 Tr. Pg. 18).
-5-
Case No. 8-17-44
And:
“The Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to
protect society, to punish the defendant that [sic] are not
disproportionate sentences. The Court finds that the defendant’s
[sic] committed criminal conduct while under court sanction. The
Court finds the defendant’s criminal history shows that
consecutive terms are necessary to protect the public.” (Sept. 5,
2017 Tr. Pg. 19).
The trial court then proceeded to sentence Hefner to consecutive prison terms for
his burglary and breaking and entering convictions.
{¶12} We find that the prison terms imposed by the trial court were within
the statutory range and that Hefner was properly notified of the potential
consequences should he violate the community control sanctions imposed by the
Court. We further find that Hefner has failed to demonstrate that the sentences of
the trial court were clearly and convincingly contrary to law in light of his failed
attempts at rehabilitation, multiple probation violations and new criminal charges.
Thus, Hefner’s argument that his consecutive sentences were contrary to law is not
well-taken and his sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶13} Having found no prejudicial error in the particulars assigned and
argued, the judgment of the Logan County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW and PRESTON, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-6-