The parties are to brief the issue as stated on the court of appeals’ February 15, 2022 entry: "Whether R.C. 2929.25(D)(4) authorizes a trial court to impose a jail term for a violation of a condition of a community-control sanction when the original sentence was directly imposed under R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(a) and no suspended jail time was reserved as contemplated under R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(b), regardless of notice having been provided under R.C. 2929.25(A)(3)(c)." The conflict cases are State v. Coffer, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 18 MA 0077, 2020-Ohio-994 ; State v. Bailey, 2016-Ohio-4937, 68 N.E.3d 416 (9th Dist.) ; State v. Gibson, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2013-P-0047, 2014-Ohio-433 ; State v. Sutton, 162 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-4589, 835 N.E.2d 752 (4th Dist.) ; State v. McDonald, 4th Dist. Ross No. 04CA2806, 2005-Ohio-3503 ; and State v. Netter, 4th Dist. Ross No. 05CA2832, 2005-Ohio-4606. O'Connor, C.J., and Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent.
At least three appellate districts have rejected this argument. See State v. Sutton, 162 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-4589, 835 N.E.2d 752 (4th Dist.) (in misdemeanor cases, a trial court is not required to impose a specific jail term at the original sentencing hearing); State v. Bailey, 2016-Ohio-4937, 68 N.E.3d 416 (9th Dist.) (the misdemeanor statute requires that the trial court notify the defendant that a jail term may be imposed for a community control violation but does not require the court to provide a specific jail term); State v. Gibson, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2013-P-0047, 2014-Ohio-433, overruled on other grounds, State v. Thomas, 2018-Ohio-1024, 109 N.E.3d 12 (11th Dist.) (a trial court is not required to notify a defendant at the original sentencing hearing of a specific jail term that may be imposed in the event of a community control sanction violation.) {¶14} Although the trial court's language in the instant case is somewhat lacking in clarity and precision, the court did provide a jail term.
As noted by several of our sister districts, Brooks, and the provisions found in the felony statute, are inapplicable to misdemeanor cases. See State v. Bailey, 2016-Ohio-4937, 68 N.E.3d 416 (9th Dist.); State v. Gibson, 11th Dist. No. 2013-P-0047, 2014-Ohio-433; State v. Sutton, 162 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-4589, 835 N.E.2d 752 (4th Dist.). In cases of misdemeanors, a court is to apply R.C. 2929.25(A)(3).
The misdemeanor statute does not require that the "specific" term be stated at the hearing. See, e.g., State v. Gibson, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2013–P–0047, 2014-Ohio-433, 2014 WL 530242, ¶ 33–34, State v. Sutton, 162 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-4589, 835 N.E.2d 752, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.). It does, however, still require that the defendant be notified that a jail term may be imposed for a violation.
There are important distinctions between the schemes for felony sentencing and misdemeanor sentencing. See, e.g., State v. Sutton, 162 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-4589, 835 N.E.2d 752, ¶ 9. Because Holmes involved a felony offender and the present case involves a misdemeanor offender, we believe that the decisions are not "upon the same question" and certification is improper.
Specifically, Appellant argues that because the trial court originally sentenced her to sixteen days and because she served all sixteen days, that it could not order additional jail time upon finding a violation. The State disagrees, citing this Court to our previous reasoning set forth in State v. Sutton, 162 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-4589, 835 N.E.2d 752. For the following reasons, we reject Appellant's argument.
December 15, 2005. Ross App. No. 05CA2818, 162 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-4589. APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
The court complied with the misdemeanor statute's notification requirement by informing him that he faced a definite jail term if he violated the conditions of his community control. See Coffer, 2020-Ohio-994, at ¶ 10-17; State v. Sutton, 162 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-4589, ¶ 11-13 (4th Dist.). Because Riemenschneider has not shown that the court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(a), 2929.25(A)(3)(c), or 2925.24(A)(1), his argument to the contrary lacks merit.