Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 08-09-2020

Case Style:


Case Number: 14-19-31

Judge: William R. Zimmerman


Plaintiff's Attorney: Raymond Kelly Hamilton

Defendant's Attorney:

Call 918-582-6422 for free help finding a great criminal defense lawyer.


{¶3} On December 29, 2015, the Union County Grand Jury indicted Ford on
four criminal counts including: Count One of trespass in a habitation in violation
of R.C. 2911.12(B), (E), a fourth-degree felony; Count Two of assault in violation
of R.C. 2903.13(A), (C), a first-degree misdemeanor; Count Three of resisting arrest
in violation of R.C. 2921.33(A), (D), a second-degree misdemeanor; and Count
Four of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A), (B), a first-degree
(Doc. No. 1).
{¶4} On January 7, 2016, Ford appeared for arraignment and entered pleas
of not guilty. (Doc. No. 7). On July 18, 2016, Ford withdrew his pleas of not guilty
and entered guilty pleas, under a written plea agreement, with a joint sentencing
recommendation. (Doc. Nos. 23, 24). In exchange for his change of pleas, the State

By agreement of the parties, the indictment was amended from Gregory William Ford to reflect Ford’s
correct name and suffix, Gregory William Ford, II. (Doc. Nos. 25, 30).
Case No. 14-19-31
agreed to dismiss Count Four and to recommend that Ford be sentenced to
community control sanctions. (Id.).
{¶5} On November 7, 2016, the trial court sentenced Ford to five years of
community control sanctions with conditions as to Counts One, Two, and Three.
(Doc. No. 30). The sentencing entry specifically informed Ford that, if he failed to
complete the term of community control, the trial court may order that he serve 18
months in prison on Count One, 180 days in jail on Count Two, and 90 days in jail
on Count Three.2
(Id.). The jail sentences in Counts Two and Three were ordered
to run concurrent to the 18-month prison term in Count One.3
(Id.). The judgment
entry was filed on November 7, 2016. (Id.).
{¶6} On March 5, 2019, Ford admitted to a community-control violation in
the trial court. (Doc. No. 51). However, the trial court did not impose the previously
suspended prison and jail terms and continued Ford on community control. (Id.).
{¶7} On September 20, 2019, the State filed another community-control
violation against Ford asserting that “[o]n or about [August 29, 2019 Ford was]

The trial court ordered that Ford abide by the following terms and conditions: 1) that he be placed under
the supervision of the County Adult Parole Authority (“APA”), with an order to report immediately; 2) that
Ford continue treatment and counseling at Recovery Prevention Resources in Delaware, Ohio and meet with
John Schott as they agree; 3) that he attend no less than two sober-support meetings each week; 4) that he
undergo random drug screens; 5) that he perform 100 hours of community service; 6) that Ford pay for any
stay in Tri-County Jail under R.C. 2929.18; 7) that he pay a $20 supervision fee each month; 8) that Ford pay
all court costs, costs of prosecution, and fees under R.C. 2929.18; 9) that Ford shall not ingest or be injected
with a drug of abuse or alcohol; 10) that he shall use only one pharmacy approved by the APA and shall at
all times provide the APA with the names, addresses, and phone numbers, of his physicians; 11) that he shall
provide a DNA sample and fingerprints to the Union County Sheriff, if requested; and 12) that Ford shall
comply with the standard conditions of supervision attached as Exhibit “A”. (Doc. No. 30).
Ford was given 18 days’ jail-time credit. (Doc. No. 30).
Case No. 14-19-31
convicted of Felonious Assault in Madison County case [number 2018CR0200]”.4

(Doc. No. 54). On October 8, 2019, the trial court ordered that Ford be served with
1) a copy of the State’s notice, 2) an affidavit of indigency, and 3) an explanation of
rights as to the alleged community-control violation.5
(Doc. No. 55).
{¶8} On October 31, 2019, the trial court held a community-controlrevocation hearing wherein Ford waived an evidentiary hearing and entered an
admission to violating his community control sanctions. (Oct. 31, 2019 Tr. at 4);
(Doc. No. 60). Thereafter, the trial court determined that Ford violated the terms of
his community control sanctions and proceeded to sentence Ford to 18 months in
prison on Count One, 180 days in jail on Count Two, and 90 days in jail on Count
Three. (Id.). The jail sentences in Counts Two and Three were ordered to run
concurrent to the 18-month prison term in Count One.6
(Id.). Further, the trial court
ordered that the 18-month prison term “be served consecutive to the sentence
imposed in Madison County, Ohio, [c]ase [number] 2018-CR-0200.” (Id.). The
judgment entry was filed on October 31, 2019. (Id.).

Ford was ordered to serve a three-year prison term in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
(“ODRC”) for his felonious-assault conviction in Madison County, case number 2018-CR-0200, and upon
his release subject to a mandatory three-year term of postrelease control supervision. (Oct. 31, 2019 Tr. at
Because Ford was in the custody of the ODRC at the time of the issuance of the State’s notice, the trial
court ordered that he be conveyed from the Correction Reception Center to the trial court for the communitycontrol-revocation hearing on October 31, 2019. (Doc. No. 56). The Union County Sheriff personally served
Ford with the notice of community-control violation, affidavit of indigency, and community-control violation
explanation of rights on October 31, 2019 at the time of conveyance. (See Doc. Nos. 57, 58); (Doc. No. 59).
Ford was given 26 days’ jail-time credit, approved for the Intensive Program and Transitional Control
(services offered by the ODRC), and ordered to pay the cost of the prosecution. (Doc. No. 60).
Case No. 14-19-31
{¶9} Ford filed his notice of appeal on November 2, 2019.7
(Doc. No. 68).
He raises one assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The Trial Court Erred When It Ordered His Sentence To Be Run
Consecutive To The Sentence He Received In Madison County
After He Violated Community Control.
{¶10} In his assignment of error, Ford argues that the trial court erred by
imposing consecutive sentences when it ordered him to serve his 18-month Union
County sentence consecutive to the previously imposed three-year prison term
arising out of Madison County Common Pleas Court in case number 2018-CR0200.8

{¶11} First, Ford argues that the trial court failed to notify him of the possible
consequences under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) for his commission of a new felony, and
the possibility that his sentence could be served consecutive to his Madison County
Second, Ford asserts that the trial court erred by failing to analyze the
factors supporting a consecutive sentence under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) and
2929.15(B)(3), and therefore his sentence is contrary to law.

On appeal, Ford initially proceeded pro se; however, on November 25, 2019, he requested the appointment
of appellate counsel which the trial court later granted on December 10, 2019. (Doc. No. 75).
Counts Two and Three are both misdemeanors, and therefore, R.C. 2929.11-2929.19 are not applicable.
See State v. Priest, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-18-071, 2019-Ohio-4901, ¶ 15. Misdemeanor sentencings are
governed by R.C. 2929.21-2929.28. Id. Further, those misdemeanor sentences under Counts Two and Three
were ordered to run concurrent to the prison term imposed in Count One in the instant case under R.C.
2929.41(A). (See Doc. No. 60).
We note that while Ford cites State v. Campbell, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2005-CA-00021, 2005-Ohio-3980,
¶ 13, citing R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) (2004), (current version at R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(b), (4) (2019)), and we
apply R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(b), (4) (2012), the result is the same.
Case No. 14-19-31
Standard of Review
{¶12} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will reverse a sentence
“only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not
support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is
otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002,
¶ 1. See State v. Jung, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105928, 2018-Ohio-1514, ¶ 14
(applying the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to review a
sentence imposed after the defendant’s community control was revoked). See also
State v. Jackson, 150 Ohio St.3d 362, 2016-Ohio-8127, ¶ 11, (concluding that a
community-control-revocation hearing is a sentencing hearing for the purposes of
R.C. 2929.19(A) and Crim.R. 32(A)(1)). Clear and convincing evidence is that
“‘which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as
to the facts sought to be established.’” Marcum at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford,
161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶13} Although, Ford advances a single assignment of error, his argument is
divided into two parts. Thus, we begin by addressing the portion of his argument
as it relates to the notification requirements.
{¶14} R.C. 2929.15(B)(1) provides in its pertinent parts that
Case No. 14-19-31
(1) If the conditions of a community control sanction are violated *
* *, the sentencing court may impose upon the violator one or more
of the following penalties:
(a) A longer time under the same sanction if the total time under the
sanctions does not exceed the five-year limit specified in division (A)
of this section;
(b) A more restrictive sanction under section 2929.16, 2929.17, or
2929.18 of the Revised Code, including but not limited to, a new term
in a community-based correctional facility, halfway house, or jail
pursuant to division (A)(6) of section 2929.16 of the Revised Code;
(c) A prison term on the offender pursuant to section 2929.14 of the
Revised Code and division (B)(3) of this section, provided that a
prison term imposed under this division is subject to the following
limitations, as applicable:
* * *
(3) The prison term, if any, imposed upon a violator pursuant to this
division and division (B)(1) of this section shall be within the range
of prison terms described in this division and shall not exceed the
prison term specified in the notice provided to the offender at the
sentencing hearing pursuant to division (B)(2) of section 2929.19 of
the Revised Code. * * *. Except as otherwise specified in this division,
the prison term imposed under this division and division (B)(1) of this
section shall be within the range of prison terms available as a definite
term for the offense for which the sanction that was violated was
imposed. * * *.
(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(a)-(c), (3). In this case, Ford’s Union
County conviction for a fourth-degree felony carries a non-mandatory sanction of
6-months to 18-months in prison. R.C. 2911.12(B), (E); R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(c);
R.C. 2929.14(A)(4). Here, the trial court’s sentence of 18 months in prison is within
the statutory range. “[A] sentence imposed within the statutory range is
Case No. 14-19-31
‘presumptively valid’ if the [trial] court considered applicable sentencing factors.”
State v. Maggette, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-16-06, 2016-Ohio-5554, ¶ 31, quoting
State v. Collier, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95572, 2011-Ohio-2791, ¶ 15. Importantly,
Ford does not challenge the trial court’s consideration of the R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12 factors. Thus, Ford’s sentence (as to Count One) is presumptively valid.
See id.
{¶15} In order to determine if the trial court complied with the notification
requirements, we must review the sentencing entries and the transcripts of the
sentencing hearings.10 In his appeal, Ford only provided us with the October 31,
2019 sentencing hearing transcript, and not a transcript of his November 7, 2016 or
March 12, 2019 sentencing hearings. “App.R. 9 requires an appellant to provide the
appellate court with transcripts of the proceedings that are necessary to review the
merits of [his] appeal.” State v. Brown, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-10-12, 2010-Ohio4546, ¶ 8, citing App.R. 9(B). When portions of the transcript are necessary for
resolution of the assigned errors, we have no choice but to presume the validity of
the lower’s court’s proceeding and affirm. Brown at ¶ 19 citing App.R. 9(B) and
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980) (concluding that
Brown had not provided the reviewing court with a “transcript of the hearing
necessary to resolve the assignments of error”). In the absence of a complete

10 The trial court conducted three separate sentencing hearings: 1) November 7, 2016; 2) March 12, 2019;
and 3) October 31, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 30, 51, 60).
Case No. 14-19-31
transcript of the proceedings, a statement of the evidence pursuant to App.R. 9(C),
or an agreed statement pursuant to App.R. 9(D), we have no alternative but to
indulge the presumption of the regularity of the proceedings and the validity of the
judgment in the trial court. State v. Ames, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-19-02, 2019-Ohio2632, ¶ 12, citing State v. Lucas, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-90-81, 1991 WL 259043,
*2 (Dec. 4, 1991), citing Ostrander v. Parker-Fallis, 29 Ohio St.2d 72, 74 (1972).
{¶16} Thus, because we do not have the ability to review the transcripts or
suitable alternatives from the November 7, 2016 or March 12, 2019 sentencing
hearings, we must presume regularity in the proceedings and the validity of the trial
court’s notifications. Id., citing State v. Brewer, 48 Ohio St.3d 50, 61 (1990), citing
United States v. Gallo, 763 F.2d 1504 (6th Cir.1985). As such, this portion of Ford’s
argument is without merit, since we can presume the trial court complied with the
statutory sentencing requirements.
{¶17} Next, we turn to consider the trial court’s analysis of the factors
supporting its consecutive sentences.
{¶18} R.C. 2929.19(B) states in its pertinent parts:
(2) Subject to division (B)(3) of this section, if the sentencing court
determines at the sentencing hearing that a prison term is necessary or
required, the court shall do all of the following:
(a) Impose a stated prison term * * *;
(b) In addition to any other information, include in the sentencing
entry * * *, the sentence or sentences imposed * * *, if sentences are
Case No. 14-19-31
imposed for multiple counts whether the sentences are to be served
concurrently or consecutively, * * *;
* * *
(4) If the sentencing court determines at the sentencing hearing that
a community control sanction should be imposed and the court is not
prohibited from imposing a community control sanction, the court
shall impose a community control sanction. The court shall notify the
offender that, if the conditions of the sanction are violated, if the
offender commits a violation of any law, or if the offender leaves this
state without the permission of the court or the offender’s probation
officer, the court may impose a longer time under the same sanction,
may impose a more restrictive sanction, or may impose a prison term
on the offender and shall indicate the specific prison term that may be
imposed as a sanction for the violation, as selected by the court from
the range of prison terms for the offense pursuant to section 2929.14
of the Revised Code and as described in section 2929.15 of the
Revised Code.
R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(a)-(b), (4). R.C. 2929.41(A) provides:
[e]xcept as provided in * * *, division (C) of section 2929.14, * * * of
the Revised Code, a prison term, * * * shall be served concurrently
with any other prison term, * * * imposed by a court of this state,
another state, or the United States. * * *.
According to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), separate prison terms for multiple offenses may
be ordered to be served consecutively if the court finds it is “necessary to protect
the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences
are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the
danger the offender poses to the public,” and if the court also finds any of the factors
in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) are present:
Case No. 14-19-31
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses
while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a
sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of
the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior
(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of
one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more
of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no
single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of
the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the
offender's conduct.
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime by the offender.
{¶19} A trial court must state the required findings at the sentencing hearing
when imposing consecutive sentences and incorporate those findings into the
sentencing entry.11 State v. Sharp, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-01, 2014-Ohio-4140,
¶ 50, citing State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 29. A trial
court “has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings” and is not “required
to give a talismanic incantation of the words of the statute, provided that the
necessary findings can be found in the record and are incorporated into the
sentencing entry.” Bonnell at ¶ 37.

11 “R.C. 2967.191 applies confinement time to the aggregate sentence when a court orders a combination of
consecutive and concurrent service on multiple prison terms.” State v. Christian, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-
Ohio-828, ¶ 54, citing R.C. 2967.191(A) (mandating that the ODRC reduce an offender’s stated prison term
by the amount of time he previously spent in confinement); R.C. 2929.01(FF)(1) (defining a “‘[s]tated prison
term’” as the “combination of all prison terms * * * imposed”); R.C. 5145.01 (“If sentenced consecutively,
* * * the prisoner shall be held to be serving one continuous term of imprisonment”); and Ohio Adm.Code
5120-2-03.1(F) (“When consecutive stated prison terms are imposed, the term to be served is the aggregate
of all of the stated prison terms so imposed”).
Case No. 14-19-31
{¶20} Relevant to the issue raised, at Ford’s October 31, 2019 sentencing
hearing in the trial court, the following exchange occurred between the trial judge
and Ford.
[Trial Court]: All right. The record reveals that you were
sentenced in this court on November the 8th of 2016
to an agreed sentence of community control. And
that if you violated, the Court would impose 18
months in prison together with jail time, which
would run concurrent to the 18 months in prison.
The record reflects that you’ve violated your
community control on more than one occasion. And
the Court’s been lenient in that regard. It’s time for
you to get the benefit of your bargain. You are
sentenced as an agreed sentence after the Court’s
considered all of the factors necessary to serve 18
months in prison for a violation of trespass in a
habitation, a felony of the fourth degree; 180 days in
jail on assault, a misdemeanor of the first degree;
and 18 months -- or excuse me -- that sentence is to
run concurrent to the 18 months on trespass in a
Case No. 14-19-31
habitation; and 90 days in jail on resisting arrest to
run concurrent to the sentence imposed on trespass
in a habitation and assault. The sentence of the
Court, I believe, by operation of law, but if not, I’ll
specify it, is to run consecutive to the sentence
imposed in Madison County case number
2018CR0200. That would -- if you’re serving the
sentence already and serving it first, you would be
eligible for judicial release, which would result in
continued community control or you can serve the
sentence imposed. Thank you.
(Oct. 31, 2019 Tr. at 8-9).
{¶21} Here, the felony sentences of Ford are not, by operation of law, to be
served consecutively. Thus, the trial court was required to state its R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) finding on the record as to its consecutive sentencing of Ford.
However, we cannot glean from the transcript that the trial court made any findings
under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) on the record when it imposed the consecutive sentence
of Ford. (Id.). See Sharp, 2014-Ohio-4140, at ¶ 50, citing Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d
209, 2014-Ohio-3177, at ¶ 29. Therefore, under the facts presented, we conclude
Case No. 14-19-31
that Ford’s sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Accordingly, we
sustain this portion of Ford’s assignment of error.

Outcome: Having found error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars
assigned and argued in his assignment of error, we affirm the conviction of the
appellant, but we reverse the sentence of the trial court and remand this matter for
resentencing in the trial court.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case