DocketNumber: No. CA 2308
Citation Numbers: 529 N.E.2d 951, 39 Ohio App. 3d 112
Judges: KERNS, P.J.
Filed Date: 7/30/1987
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
In August 1984, the defendant, Robert Carreker, was convicted of trafficking in drugs, after which he was given a suspended sentence of two years and placed on probation for a period of three years. In May 1985, Carreker was arrested for aggravated burglary, and at that time, an affidavit charging him with a violation of the terms of his probation was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Clark County. In July 1985, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the aggravated burglary charge, and he was sentenced to a prison term of ten to twenty-five years. However, no action was taken on the probation violation.
In January 1986, defense counsel filed a demand for a hearing on the charge, but no action was taken on the motion. Then, on December 12, 1986, after a motion to dismiss the charge had been filed by the defense, a hearing was conducted by the trial court on the matter. As a result of the hearing, Carreker's probation was revoked and his suspended sentence invoked, and he was thereupon ordered to serve the two-year sentence consecutively to the sentence which had been imposed for the aggravated burglary.
In the present appeal from the revocation of probation and imposition of sentence, Carreker has set forth his only assignment of error as follows:
"The trial court erred by failing to immediately bring the appellant to *Page 113 hearing on an application to revoke probation."
In support of the alleged error, the appellant relies upon R.C.
"When a defendant on probation is brought before the judge or magistrate under section
It may be noted that this statutory provision, for the most part, has been superceded by Crim. R. 32.3, but in any event, the summary revocation procedure described in R.C.
In this case, almost one and a half years elapsed between the aggravated burglary conviction and the revocation of probation, but the record also discloses that the violation, the charge, the hearing, and the revocation all occurred well within the probationary period originally imposed in connection with the trafficking charge. See State v. Simpson (1981),
Although the record in this case offers no explanation for the lengthy delay, neither does it portray any prejudicial error or fundamental unfairness. Hence, the assigned error must be overruled.
The judgment of the common pleas court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WOLFF and FAIN, JJ., concur. *Page 114