[Cite as State v. Rader, 2018-Ohio-4367.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HANCOCK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 5-18-10
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROGER L. RADER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2018-CR-3
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 29, 2018
APPEARANCES:
W. Alex Smith for Appellant
Phillip A. Riegle for Appellee
Case No. 5-18-10
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Roger L. Rader (“Rader”) appeals the judgment of
the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial court did not
have jurisdiction to impose a sentence for his post-release control violation. For the
reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On January 16, 2018, Rader was indicted in Hancock County on one
count of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(5). Doc. 1. In this case, this charge
was a felony of the fifth degree. Doc. 26. At the time of the alleged offense, Rader
was subject to post-release control pursuant to a sentence imposed by the Marion
County Court of Common Pleas. Doc. 29. On April 23, 2018, Rader pled guilty to
the charge against him in Hancock County. Doc. 26. The trial court then sentenced
Rader, adopting the joint recommendation of the parties. Doc. 29. As part of this
sentence, the trial court found Rader to be in violation of the terms of his post-
release control, terminated his post-release control supervision, and sentenced
Rader to a term in prison for his post-release control violation. Doc. 29.
Assignment of Error
{¶3} On May 14, 2018, Rader filed his notice of appeal. In his appeal, Rader
raises the following assignment of error:
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose time for a violation
of post-release control.
-2-
Case No. 5-18-10
Rader argues that the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas did not have
jurisdiction to sentence him for his post-release control violation because his term
of post-release control arose from a sentence imposed by the Marion County Court
of Common Pleas.
Legal Standard
{¶4} R.C. 2929.141(A) reads, in its relevant part, as follows:
(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 this state imposed the original
prison term for which the person is on post-release control:
(1) In addition to any prison term for the new felony, impose a
prison term for the post-release control violation. The maximum
prison term for the violation shall be the greater of twelve months
or the period of post-release control for the earlier felony minus
any time the person has spent under post-release control for the
earlier felony. In all cases, any prison term imposed for the
violation shall be reduced by any prison term that is
administratively imposed by the parole board as a post-release
control sanction. A prison term imposed for the violation shall be
served consecutively to any prison term imposed for the new
felony. The imposition of a prison term for the post-release
control violation shall terminate the period of post-release control
for the earlier felony.
(Emphasis added). R.C. 2929.141(A)(1).
Legal Analysis
{¶5} In this appeal, neither party disputes that Rader committed a felony
while on post-release control. Under these circumstances, R.C. 2929.141(A)
-3-
Case No. 5-18-10
expressly gives Ohio courts the authority to impose a prison sentence for a violation
of post-release control “regardless of whether * * * another court of this state
imposed the original prison term for which the person is on post-release control.”
R.C. 2929.141(A)(1). Thus, the trial court, in this case, had jurisdiction to sentence
Rader to a prison term for his post-release control violation. For this reason, Rader’s
sole assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶6} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of Hancock County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW and PRESTON, J.J., concur.
/hls
-4-