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. Dunwoody

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum

June 18, 2018

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
STEVEN DUNWOODY Defendant-Appellant

          Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2017-0208

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

          For Defendant-Appellant ERIC J. ALLEN The Law Office of Eric J. Allen, Ltd.

          JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

          OPINION

          BALDWIN, JUDGE

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant Steven Dunwoody appeals his sentence issued by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas on July 31, 2017. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

         STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

         {¶2} On June 19, 2017, a Bill of Information was filed with the Muskingum County Court charging appellant with one count of failure to register as a sexual offender (address change) in violation of R.C. 2950.05(A), a felony of the third degree. On the same date, a typewritten "Waiver, and Plea of Guilty to Prosecutor's Bill of Information" was filed. The trial court, at appellant's arraignment on June 19, 2017, found appellant guilty. As memorialized in an Entry filed on August 2, 2017, appellant, on July 31, 2017, was sentenced to two years in prison. The trial court, in its Entry, found that appellant was "on post-release control at the time of the commission of the offenses herein in Case No. CR2015-0056" and, pursuant to R.C. 2929.141, terminated appellant's period of post-release control and ordered that appellant "serve the remainder of his post relief control; said sentence shall be served mandatory consecutive to the sentence imposed herein." Finally, the court, in its Entry, stated that it notified appellant as to the consequences of violating post-release control in the case:

         {¶3} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error on appeal:

         {¶4} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO NOTIFY THE APPELLANT AT SENTENCING THE AMOUNT OF TIME HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVE FOR THE TERMINATION OF HIS POST-RELEASE CONTROL.

         I.

         {¶5} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to specify at sentencing the length of his sanction for violation post-release control. The State argues in rebuttal that the term will be calculated by the Adult Parole Authority.

         {¶6} R.C. 2929.141(A)(1) provides for the termination of post-release control upon commission of a new felony as follows:

         {¶7} (A) Upon the conviction of or plea of guilty to a felony by a person on post-release control at the time of the commission of the felony, the court may terminate the term of post-release control, and the court may do either of the following regardless of whether the sentencing court or another court of ...


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.