[Cite as State v. Singleton, 2014-Ohio-1115.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO :
Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 25889
v. : T.C. NO. 13CRB4522
JAN SINGLETON : (Criminal appeal from
Municipal Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
..........
OPINION
Rendered on the 21st day of March , 2014.
..........
CARMILLE L. AKANDE, Atty. Reg. No. 0079196, Assistant City Attorney, 101 W. Third
Street, P. O. Box 22, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
THADDEUS HOFFMEISTER, Atty. Reg. No. 0081977, University of Dayton Law Clinic,
300 College Park, Dayton, Ohio 45469
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
..........
FROELICH, P.J.
{¶ 1} Jan L. Singleton appeals from a judgment of the Dayton Municipal
Court, Criminal Division, which found him guilty on his no contest plea of failing to obey a
legal order of a housing inspector, a misdemeanor of the third degree. The trial court
2
sentenced Singleton to 60 days in jail, imposed a $500 fine, and ordered him to pay court
costs. The court’s judgment also stated that Singleton was “ordered not to transfer or obtain
any new properties.” Singleton appeals, challenging only the portion of his sentence that
prohibited him from acquiring any new properties.
{¶ 2} Singleton owns property at 401-403 Wyoming Street in Dayton. In April
2012, he was cited for several issues related to the structural soundness of the property,
including lack of operational and structurally sound doors and windows, peeling paint and
metal surfaces, missing and damaged siding, and a damaged fence, driveway, steps, and
walkway. At his plea hearing, Singleton asserted that his financial situation had prevented
him from rehabilitating the property and bringing it into compliance with the city’s
requirements. He also stated that he owned 68 properties (not all of which have structures),
but that he gets income from only one. He had no other source of income; he lived on and
attempted to renovate his other properties with that income. Many of his properties had
“clouded” titles and were “really not marketable” until he could clear the title and/or repair
them.
{¶ 3} After accepting his no contest plea, the trial court sentenced Singleton as
described above. Defense counsel objected to the court’s requirement that Singleton not be
allowed to obtain any new properties.
{¶ 4} Singleton appeals from his sentence, challenging the court’s authority to
impose a condition on his behavior in addition to the maximum sentence. Singleton seems
to acknowledge that the trial court could have imposed such a condition as part of a
community control sanction, but he was not sentenced to community control. He also
3
argues that the condition was improper because it was “indefinite,” exceeding the statutory
maximum of five years for community control sanctions (R.C. 2929.25(A)(2)) and
“overbroad,” because it was not tied to the success of his efforts to come onto compliance.
{¶ 5} The State concedes that the sentence imposed by the trial court was improper
to the extent that it prohibited Singleton from acquiring property, because the sentence was
not provided by law, and a trial court may not impose a community control sanction in
addition to the maximum penalty. See, e.g, State v. Bilder, 39 Ohio App.3d 135, 529
N.E.2d 1292, syllabus (9th Dist.1987) (holding trial court could not forbid access to a
governmental building, except when conducting official business, as a condition of a
sentence for public indecency, because such a sanction was not authorized by statute); State
v. Jerido, 5th Dist. Stark No. 97-CA-265, 1998 WL 400919 (May 26, 1998) (holding
banishment from visiting a county to be an unauthorized criminal sanction); State v.
Jacobs, 189 Ohio App.3d 283, 2010-Ohio-4010, 938 N.E.2d 79, ¶ 5, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.) (lifetime
ban from a shopping mall held to be impermissible because it was unauthorized, community
control was not available in conjunction with prison sentence, and community control
sanctions could not exceed five years.)
{¶ 6} We agree with the parties that 1) the trial court erred in imposing a sanction
in the nature of a community control sanction when Singleton was not placed on community
control and received the maximum jail sentence, 2) the sanction was indefinite, and 3) the
sanction was not conditioned on – and could not be discharged by – compliance with the
housing orders at issue in the case.
{¶ 7} The assignments of error are sustained.
4
{¶ 8} The portion of the trial court’s sentence restricting Singleton’s ability to
transfer property will be vacated. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court will
be affirmed.
..........
FAIN, J. and DONOVAN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Carmille L. Akande
Thaddeus Hoffmeister
Hon. Deirdre E. Logan