From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Holland

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking County
Nov 18, 2011
2011 Ohio 6042 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 11-CA-47

11-18-2011

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. BRIAN E. HOLLAND Defendant-Appellant

APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee BRIAN WALTZ For Defendant-Appellant WILLIAM T. CRAMER


JUDGES:

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.

Hon. Sheila G. , J.

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.

OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10-CR-628

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee

BRIAN WALTZ

For Defendant-Appellant

WILLIAM T. CRAMER Farmer , J.

{¶1} On November 12, 2010, the Licking County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Brian Holland, on one count of illegally manufacturing drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.04 and one count of illegally assembling or possessing chemicals for the manufacture of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.041. A jury trial commenced on March 22, 2011. The jury found appellant guilty. By judgment entry filed March 23, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant to seven years in prison, and included a provision that appellant was not to be considered or released on transitional control.

{¶2} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:

I

{¶3} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY INCLUDING IN THE SENTENCING ENTRY A PROVISION THAT APPELLANT IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OR RELEASED ON TRANSITIONAL CONTROL."

I

{¶4} Appellant claims the trial court erred by including in the sentencing entry a provision that he is not to be considered or released on transitional control. We agree.

{¶5} Based upon this court's well reasoned opinion in State v. Spears, Licking App. No. 10-CA-95, 2011-Ohio-1538, ¶34-38, this assignment of error is granted.

{¶6} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio is hereby reversed, and the matter is remanded to said court for resentencing without the transitional control language. By Farmer, J. Hoffman, P.J. and Delaney, J. concur.

Sheila G. Farmer

William B. Hoffman

Patricia A. Delaney

JUDGES

SGF/sg 1026

COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRIAN E. HOLLAND Defendant-Appellant


JUDGMENT ENTRY


CASE NO. 11-CA-47

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio is reversed, and the matter is remanded to said court for resentencing without the transitional control language. Costs to appellee.

Sheila G. Farmer

William B. Hoffman

Patricia A. Delaney

JUDGES


Summaries of

State v. Holland

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking County
Nov 18, 2011
2011 Ohio 6042 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Case details for

State v. Holland

Case Details

Full title:State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian E. Holland, Defendant-Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking County

Date published: Nov 18, 2011

Citations

2011 Ohio 6042 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)