Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Clark

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum

March 28, 2018

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JESSIE CLARK Defendant-Appellant

          Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2017-0003

          For Plaintiff-Appellee D. MICHAEL HADDOX Prosecuting Attorney By: GERALD V. ANDERSON II Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

          For Defendant-Appellant ERIC J. ALLEN

          Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

          OPINION

          Hoffman, J.

         {¶1} Appellant Jessie L. Clark appeals the judgment entered by the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court convicting him of receiving stolen property (R.C. 2913.51(A)) and attempt to have a weapon while under disability (R.C. 2923.02(A) and R.C. 2923.13(A)(3)), both felonies of the fourth degree, and revoking his post-release control in a separate case. Appellee is the state of Ohio.

         STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

         {¶2} On October 28, 2016, Appellant offered to take a gun and sell it for another person, knowing the gun was stolen. Appellant had a prior conviction for trafficking in drugs, a felony of the fourth degree, which resulted in him being placed under disability from owning or possessing a firearm.

         {¶3} Appellant was indicted on one count of receiving stolen property and one count of attempt to have a weapon under disability by the Muskingum County grand jury on January 4, 2017. He entered a guilty plea to both charges and was sentenced to eighteen months incarceration on each conviction, to be served concurrently.

         {¶4} At the time of the commission of the offenses, Appellant was on post-release control from Muskingum County Case No. CR2015-0423. During the plea and sentencing hearing, the trial court stated:

The Court is going to terminate your PRC. The reason being, they do the administrative to make it look like you did not commit a new offense because you went in on a rule violation. You did commit a new offense while on post-release control. Statistically they're trying to make themselves look better, and they use that against other departments who don't do that type of thing in regards to funding. It's not right.
Therefore, the Court is terminating your post-release control and ordering that the time you have left on it be imposed. You got the credit of the six months that you would have gotten towards this sentence; therefore, it's the same amount of time one way or the other, but I am terminating and imposing what you have left, which would be to whatever it is in May. Tr. 15-16.

         {¶5} With regards to revocation of post-release control and the accompanying sanction, the sentencing entry recites:

The Court further finds that the Defendant was on post release control at the time of the commission of the offenses herein in the Muskingum County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2015-0243. Pursuant to ORC ยง2929.141, this Court terminates the Defendant's period of post release control and hereby ORDERS that the Defendant serve the remainder of his post release control; said sentence shall ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.