State v. Braggs, 220923
| Decision Date | 01 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 220923,220923 |
| Parties | , 37 O.O.2d 399, 38 O.O.2d 52 STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff, v. David BRAGGS, Defendant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Common Pleas |
This cause now comes before the Court upon the Application of the defendant, David Braggs, to suspend sentence. David Braggs originally appeared before this Court on March 1, 1965 charged with contributing to the delinquency of a seventeen year old boy in that he did engage in unnatural sexual activity with the boy.
Upon the defendant's plea of guilty, the charge being a 'misdemeanor involving a sex offense, or in which abnormal sexual tendencies are displayed' and it appearing to the Court that the defendant was a 'psychopathic offender', the Court, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2947.25 of the Revised Code of Ohio, committed the defendant to the Lima State Hospital for psychiatric examination. The conclusion of the Lima State Hospital psychiatrist was that the defendant was a 'psychopath' * * * 'positive to the Ascherman Act and committable.' Other findings of the psychiatrist and the psychologist of the Lima State Hospital were as follows: 'sexual preoccupation and a hostile and aggressive sexual attitude' * * * 'a hostile individual who doesn't show any insight and whose judgment is defective' * * * 'there is strong evidence of liability, hostility and aggression and of sexual deviation and promiscuity.' * * * 'Although not psychotic, the patient's lability and hostility would be a threat to society-the patient is a good candidate for a future psychotic state.'
The Court, upon consideration of this report, found the defendant to be a psychopathic offender as defined in Section 2947.24 Revised Code of Ohio. Thereupon, in conformity with Section 2947.25 Revised Code of Ohio, the Court sentenced the defendant to one year in the House of Correction. At the same time the Court ordered the indefinite commitment of the defendant to Lima State Hospital and further ordered that the defendant's sentence to the House of Correction be suspended during the continuance of the commitment to the Lima State Hospital.
Under date of April 18, 1966 the Court received a letter from the Superintendent of Lima State Hospital stating that the defendant was transferred to the Cleveland House of Correction to continue his sentence. As to the reason for the defendant's transfer to the House of Correction the report which accompanied the letter stated as follows:
'The patient has received the maximum medical facilities which are available and he does not have any further motivation for treatment from our hospital and his condition can be called unchanged and at the present time we are unable to offer him any more from our psychiatric facilities.' (Our emphasis)
We questioned the hospital's authority to transfer the defendant to the House of Correction for their stated reasons but the hospital insisted that they had the authority to do so and refused to readmit the defendant. The Court thereupon ordered the sentence to the Cleveland House of Correction into effect.
With this background we now consider the application of defendant's counsel to suspend sentence.
It is the contention of counsel that since the aggregate time that the defendant has spent in Lima State Hospital and the House of Correction more than exceeds the one year to which the defendant was sentenced that he should now, pursuant to Section 2947.27 Revised Code of Ohio, be released. This section provides as follows:-
'Whenever a person committed under section 2947.25 of the Revised Code has recovered, or his condition appears to have improved to such an extent that he no longer needs the special custody, care, or treatment of such institution, the superintendent of the institution shall report the facts to the commissioner of mental hygiene, who may order further examination of such person. If such person has recovered or is sufficiently improved to justify such action, the director of mental hygiene and correction upon the written recommendation of the commissioner, shall issue one of the following orders:
(A) If the person has been confined for a period less than the maximum sentence for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Copeland v. Warden, 14381
...required to serve the criminal sentence imposed because of his criminal conduct. Cf. Talley v. Beavers, supra; State v. Braggs, 9 Ohio Misc. 32, 221 N.E.2d 493 (Ohio Juv.1966); Mitts v. State, 345 P.2d 913 (Okla.App.1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 846, 80 S.Ct. 1620, 4 L.Ed.2d 1730 The only j......
-
State v. Flemming
...for example, Talley v. Beavers, 141 Ga. 110, 80 S.E. 556 (1913); Mitts v. State, 345 P.2d 913 (Okl.Cr.App.1959); State v. Braggs, 9 Ohio Misc. 32, 221 N.E.2d 493 (Ohio Juv.1966). See also Novosel v. Helgemoe, 384 A.2d 124, 131 Punishment for escape should not be ignored simply because a per......
-
People v. Whitney
...of a sexually dangerous person until complete recovery, even when full recovery can never be expected. State v. Braggs, 9 Ohio Misc. 32, 221 N.E.2d 493 (Juv.Ct.1966); State v. Noll, 171 Neb. 831, 108 N.W.2d 108 (1961). Although treatment is one of the purposes of the Illinois statute, like ......