City of Hamilton v. Adkins
| Decision Date | 03 August 1983 |
| Citation | 10 Ohio App.3d 217,461 N.E.2d 319 |
| Parties | , 10 O.B.R. 292 CITY OF HAMILTON, Appellee, v. ADKINS, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
When a trial court sentences a defendant in a criminal proceeding and there is an ambiguity in the language as to whether the sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively, the defendant is entitled to have the language construed in his favor so that the sentences may be served concurrently.
Gerald L. Pater, Asst. Law Director, Hamilton, for appellee.
Condo, Walsh, Schiavone, Spillane & Miller and Fred Miller, Hamilton, for appellant.
This cause came on to be heard upon an appeal from the Hamilton Municipal Court of Butler County, Ohio.
Defendant-appellant, Victor Adkins, was arrested on five different misdemeanor charges. Through the plea bargaining process, appellant pleaded no contest to two charges of disorderly conduct and one charge of intoxication.
When presented with this arrangement on October 14, 1982, the trial judge ruled that "on the 'no contest' pleas there will be a finding of 'guilty,' and fifty ($50) dollars and costs, thirty (30) days on each charge." The Entry of Conviction filed that same day read that "[t]he Court imposed a sentence of 30 days in jail plus a $50.00 fine and court cost in each of the cases wherein the defendant has plead[ed] no contest."
A notice of appeal was filed on October 15, 1982. Three days later, appellant filed a motion for bail pending appeal. A hearing on this motion was held on October 20, 1982. At that time, the trial judge indicated that he had failed to afford the appellant an opportunity to say anything on his own behalf when he sentenced him on October 14. After giving appellant and counsel the opportunity to speak, the trial judge announced that appellant was to be sentenced to "$50.00 and costs and 30 days in jail on each of the three charges with the jail time to run consecutively." The court then proceeded to address appellant's request for bail.
As his sole assignment of error, appellant claims the following:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of defendant-appellant when it ordered consecutive sentences after the notice of appeal had been filed."
Appellant argues that, under the provision of R.C. 2929.41, the court's entry of October 14 should be construed as an imposition of concurrent sentences.
R.C. 2929.41, which deals with multiple sentences, reads in part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roberts
...sentences if the trial court failed to impose them according to the relevant statute at that time. See Hamilton v. Adkins , 10 Ohio App.3d 217, 461 N.E.2d 319 (12th Dist.1983) (consecutive sentences reversed because trial court did not specify that the sentences be served consecutively, as ......
-
State v. Sorenson
...to be served concurrently with, or consecutively to, a prior sentence meant that the sentence was concurrent); Hamilton v. Adkins, 10 Ohio App.3d 217, 461 N.E.2d 319 (1983) (when a trial court sentences a defendant in a criminal proceeding and there is an ambiguity in the language as to whe......
-
State v. Hartman
...854 N.E.2d 571, ¶ 4 (3d Dist.), citing State v. Quinones, 8th Dist. No. 83720, 2004-Ohio-4485; Hamilton v. Adkins, 10 Ohio App.3d 217, 461 N.E.2d 319 (12th Dist.1983). {¶ 67} This ambiguity, moreover, does not change the correct calculation of appellant's aggregate prison sentence of 60 yea......
- State v. Hollis