DocketNumber: No. 2007-T-0039.
Citation Numbers: 2007 Ohio 6734
Judges: MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
Filed Date: 12/14/2007
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 2} Substantive and Procedural History
{¶ 3} On October 24, 2006, Mr. Lowery entered and the court accepted a plea of guilty to a bill of information, which charged him with one count of breaking and *Page 2
entering, a felony of the fifth degree in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} However, on December 19, 2006, Mr. Lowery failed to appear for sentencing. The court issued a capias for his arrest and ultimately a sentencing hearing was held on February 6, 2007. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Lowery was sentenced to concurrently serve a ten month term of imprisonment for each count; was given credit for all time properly served while awaiting disposition; was ordered to submit a DNA sample pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 5} Defense counsel consented to preparation of the sentencing order by the state, and on February 21, 2006, a judgment entry on the sentence was filed, which set forth the sentence given at the hearing, and contained a paragraph in which the court disapproved of Mr. Lowery's placement in a program of shock incarceration pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 6} Mr. Lowery timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:
{¶ 7} "[1.] The trial court committed reversible error by including in the sentencing entry a sentencing term not expressed at the time of appellant's sentencing in the presence of the appellant."
{¶ 8} Disapproval of Shock Incarceration or Intensive PrisonProgram *Page 3
{¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Lowery contends that the court was constitutionally required to articulate all of the sentencing terms that were included in the sentencing entry at the time of the sentencing hearing. Since the court failed to inform Mr. Lowery that the court would not approve placement in a shock incarceration or intensive prison program during the sentencing hearing, yet included its disapproval for the placement of Mr. Lowery into such programs in its judgment entry, Mr. Lowery argues the court committed reversible error. We find this contention to be without merit.
{¶ 10} R.C.
{¶ 11} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 12} "The sentencing court * * * may recommend placement of the offender in a program of shock incarceration under section
{¶ 13} Accordingly, the court made a recommendation of disapproval and included this determination in the sentencing judgment entry of February 21, 2006, stating: "The Court further disapproves of the Defendant's placement in a program of shock incarceration pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 14} There is no requirement in R.C.
{¶ 15} Moreover, the fact that the court found Mr. Lowery is not amenable to shock incarceration or in an intensive prison program is no surprise since during the sentencing hearing the court addressed Mr. Lowery stating: "All right. Mr. Lowery, you have an extensive criminal history, continuous criminal activity. You were on post-release control previously and negatively terminated. You have six prior times on probation. You committed an offense in Niles court five days after release. You are not amenable to any type of community control sanctions." The court then sentenced Mr. Lowery to two concurrent ten month terms of imprisonment, with credit for time served; *Page 5
was ordered to submit a DNA sample pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 16} Thus, the transcript read as a whole establishes the court's specific reasons for disapproving Mr. Lowery for shock incarceration or an intensive prison program and is sufficient to meet the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 17} In State v. Jackson, 5th Dist. Nos. 05 CA 46 and 05 CA 47,
{¶ 18} We find this reasoning persuasive and determine that in this case the court made sufficient findings on the record as a basis for its recommendation of disapproval of Mr. Lowery's placement in a shock incarceration or an intensive prison *Page 6 program. Although the court did not inform Mr. Lowery of such disapproval at the sentencing hearing, Mr. Lowery has suffered no prejudice from this harmless error.
{¶ 19} Mr. Lowery's assignment of error is without merit.
{¶ 20} The judgment of the Trumbull Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
*Page 1TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., concurs, COLLEEN MARY OTOOLE, J., dissents.