State v. Heidrick

[Cite as State v. Heidrick, 2012-Ohio-1739.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96822
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
JOSEPH P. HEIDRICK
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-546366
BEFORE: Kilbane, J., Boyle, P.J., and E. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 19, 2012
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Timothy Young
State of Ohio Public Defender
Stephen P. Hardwick
Assistant Public Defender
250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Robert L. Tobik
Cuyahoga County Public Defender
Cullen Sweeney
Assistant Public Defender
310 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Mark J. Mahoney
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center - 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
{¶1} In this appeal, defendant-appellant, Joseph Heidrick, challenges the
sentence imposed following his convictions for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and
corrupting another with drugs. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
{¶2} On January 28, 2011, 31-year-old Joseph Heidrick was indicted pursuant to a
four-count indictment. Defendant was charged with importuning involving a 13-year-old
girl; unlawful sexual conduct with a 13-year-old girl; corrupting another with drugs; and
possessing criminal tools, with forfeiture specifications. On March 21, 2011, defendant
pled guilty to the charges of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and corrupting another
with drugs, and the remaining charges were nolled.
{¶3} On April 27, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to five years of
imprisonment, with five years of postrelease control supervision on the charge of
unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and one year of community control sanctions on the
charge of corrupting another with drugs. The trial court further ordered:
Community control to commence upon release from prison.
* * * It is therefore ordered that defendant is sentenced to 1
year(s) of community control, under the supervision of the Adult
Probation Department * * *.
{¶4} Defendant appeals, assigning the following error for our review:
The trial court erred by running Mr. Heidrick’s community
control sanction consecutively to his prison term.
{¶5} Within this assignment of error, defendant maintains that the trial court had
no authority to sentence him to serve a term of community control sanctions consecutive
to a prison term because such sentence interferes with the Adult Parole Authority’s
supervision of him following his release from prison.
{¶6} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), our review is limited to determining if
there is “clear and convincing evidence to show that the record does not support the
sentencing court’s [action].” See also State v. Ramsey, 6th Dist. No. WD-04-004,
2004-Ohio-5677.
{¶7} We further note that R.C. 2929.13(A) states, in pertinent part, as follows:
[A] court that imposes a sentence upon an offender for a felony may
impose any sanction or combination of sanctions on the offender that
are provided in sections 2929.14 to 2929.18 of the Revised Code.
{¶8} This code section provides a trial court with discretion to impose a prison
term for one offense and community control sanctions for a separate offense. State v.
Randolph, 12th Dist. No. CA2003-10-262, 2004-Ohio-3350, ¶ 6-7; State v. Aitkens, 8th
Dist. Nos. 79851 and 79929, 2002-Ohio-1080, at 2; State v. Molina, 8th Dist. No. 83166,
2004-Ohio-1110, ¶ 10. The trial court may also order that the sentence of community
control be served consecutively to the prison term, i.e., begin upon the accused’s release
from prison. Ramsey, 6th Dist. No. WD-04-004, 2004-Ohio-5677, at ¶ 4; State v.
Kinder, 5th Dist. No. 03CAA12075, 2004-Ohio-4340, at ¶ 31.
{¶9} As explained in Ramsey:
This code section has been applied to mean a blended sentence is
possible. * * * A blended sentence of this type is proper when it is
imposed to be served consecutively. State v. Kinder * * *. Such a
sentence is not inconsistent with R.C. 2929.13(B)(2), which provides
guidance to the sentencing court for the choice of prison or control
sanctions for a fourth or fifth degree felony. State v. Aitkens, * * *.
Nothing in the sentencing guidelines appears to prohibit this type of
blended sentence. State v. Meredith, 4th Dist. No. 02CA5,
2002-Ohio-4508, at ¶ 13. Accord, State v. Gray (June 30, 2000), 2d
Dist. No. 99-CA-103.
{¶10} Similarly, in Aitkens, this court explained:
Although Aitkens argues that all four cases involved the forgery
of checks, depending on the circumstances of each case the court could
have found community control sanctions appropriate for two cases and
prison terms appropriate for the other two, as R.C. 2929.13(A) allows
this kind of disposition and is determinative of this appeal.
***
That is exactly what the court did in this case; the court imposed
a combination of sanctions on Aitkens including prison terms pursuant
to R.C. 2929.14 and community control sanctions pursuant to R.C.
2929.15. R.C. 2929.13(A) specifically authorizes a court to exercise its
discretion in sentencing an offender to any sanction or combination of
sanctions provided for by law.
See also State v. Marks, 8th Dist. No. 92548, 2009-Ohio-6306, ¶ 13.
{¶11} Applying the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court acted within its
discretion and in accordance with the law in imposing a sentence of community control
consecutively to a term of imprisonment.
{¶12} Further, although defendant cites to R.C. 2967.29 in support of his
argument, nothing in this code provision precludes the imposition of a blended sentence.
The assignment of error is without merit.
{¶13} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common
pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s convictions having
been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR