State v. Stansberry
| Docket Number | 14-22-25 |
| Decision Date | 11 September 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 Ohio 3212 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SHAWN ALLEN STANSBERRY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Alison Boggs for Appellant
Raymond Kelly Hamilton for Appellee
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Shawn Allen Stansberry ("Stansberry"), appeals the September 27, 2022 judgment of sentence of the Union County Court of Common Pleas. Stansberry argues that his convictions are void because his right to a speedy trial under R.C. 2941.401 was violated. Additionally, he argues the trial court erred when it sentenced him to maximum sentences on the fifth-degree felonies charged against him and also when it ran several of the sentences consecutive to each other. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On or about January 8, 2020, eight people at seven different residences on State Route 31 discovered that their vehicles had been unlawfully entered into and had items removed. As a result of these incidents, on May 14, 2020, the Union County Grand Jury indicted Stansberry on seventeen counts: seven counts of breaking and entering, pursuant to R.C. 2911.13(B) & (C); seven counts of theft, pursuant to R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) & (B)(2); one count of receiving stolen property, pursuant to R.C. 2913.51(A) & (C); one count of petty theft, pursuant to R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) & (B)(2); and one count of theft of drugs, pursuant to R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) & (B)(6). The breaking and entering, theft, and receiving stolen property counts were felonies of the fifth degree; the petty theft count was a misdemeanor of the first degree; and the theft of drugs count was a felony of the third degree. At the time the indictment was issued, Stansberry was an inmate at the Multi County Correctional Center in Marion, Ohio. He was subsequently transferred to the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to serve an unrelated prison term.
{¶3} On August 31, 2020, Stansberry signed two documents pertaining to his right to a speedy trial: a Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Request for Disposition of Indictments, Information or Complaints, as well as a Notice of Untried Indictments, Information or Complaint and Rights to Request Disposition. These documents indicated that Stansberry was currently imprisoned and was making a request, pursuant to R.C. 2941.401, for disposition of any untried indictment, information, or complaint. Additionally, the Record Office of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction prepared a letter addressed to the prosecuting attorney, which indicated that Stansberry was imprisoned for an offense in Wood County case number 2020CR0028 and the "End of Definite Sentence Date" was April 13, 2021 (which was 225 days from the date of the letter).
{¶4} The two notices and letter to the prosecutor were received by the clerk of courts and filed stamped on September 4, 2020. Thereafter, Stansberry was arraigned and the matter was scheduled for a pretrial conference. At the December 9, 2020 pretrial hearing, the court set February 22, 2021 as the trial date. However, on February 17, 2021, at a pretrial hearing without Stansberry present, Stansberry's counsel requested both a continuance of the trial date and a further pretrial hearing to take place on March 17, 2021. The trial court granted the request. Specifically, the Journal Entry from February 17, 2021 states, in part:
[Stansberry's counsel] informed the Court that the matter is not resolved and he is working with the bailiff to coordinate a Zoom meeting with the defendant at the institution [at which Stansberry was incarcerated]. [Stansberry's counsel] requested that the Jury Trial scheduled on February 22 & 23, 2021 be continued and a further Pretrial hearing be scheduled on March 17, 2021 at 11:45 A.M. The State did not oppose. [Counsel for the State] informed the Court that the defendant's release date is March 20, 2021. The Court Granted said oral request.
(Feb. 17, 2021 Journal Entry). As referenced in the briefing and during oral argument, the COVID pandemic during this time was causing scheduling challenges for both prison and court administration. (See, e.g., Appellee's Brief at 5).
{¶5} It is unclear from the record whether the March 17, 2021 pretrial hearing actually took place. On March 29, 2021, by hearing notice, the court scheduled another pretrial hearing for April 13, 2021. However, Stansberry, who had been released from prison, failed to appear at this pretrial hearing. Between April of 2021 and March of 2022, two arrest warrants had to be issued to compel Stansberry's attendance at court proceedings.
{¶6} On March 16, 2022, after being arrested on the bench warrant, Stansberry changed his plea to guilty on 16 of the counts against him, with the State dismissing the count for theft of drugs. Stansberry was placed into an intervention in lieu of conviction ("ILC") program. However, on June 9, 2022, the trial court held a hearing and found that Stansberry violated the conditions of the ILC program. The trial court ordered Stansberry's Intervention in Lieu be terminated and found Stansberry guilty of the 16 counts. The trial court also ordered a presentence investigation report ("PSI") be completed and provided to the court.
{¶7} On September 27, 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The judge sentenced Stansberry to 12 months in prison for each count of breaking-and-entering, theft, and receiving stolen property, as well as 180 days in jail for the count of petty theft. The judge ordered the 12-month sentences for one count of theft and for each of the seven breaking-and-entering counts run consecutively, one after another, for an aggregate prison term of 96 months. The court then ordered the sentences for all other counts run concurrently to this prison term. That same day, the trial court filed its journal entry of sentence. This appeal followed.
{¶8} Stansberry filed his notice of appeal with the trial court on November 29, 2022. He raises two assignments of error for our review:
{¶9} In his first assignment of error, Stansberry asserts that his convictions are void because his right to a speedy trial pursuant to R.C. 2941.401 was violated. He argues that, applying R.C. 2941.401, "the trial court lost jurisdiction in this case after 180 days lapsed from the time Mr. Stansberry's notice was filed with the court and served on the prosecuting attorney, and anything that occurred after that date is ineffective, as the court lost jurisdiction, whether it was raised by Mr. Stansberry or not." (Appellant Brief at 4). Stansberry requests that we reverse the trial court's decision and vacate his conviction.
{¶10} "[S]peedy trial issues present mixed questions of law and fact." State v. Marr, 2018-Ohio-5061, 126 N.E.3d 333, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.). "[W]e apply a de novo standard of review to the legal issues but give deference to any factual findings made by the trial court." Id.
{¶11} '"In Ohio, the right to a speedy trial is implemented by statutes that impose a duty on the state to bring the defendant to trial within a specified time."' State v. Irish, 2019-Ohio-2765, 140 N.E.3d 209, ¶ 11 (3d Dist), quoting State v. Melampy, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2007-04-008, 2008-Ohio-5838, ¶ 9. "Ohio's 'general' speedy-trial statutes are contained in R.C. 2945.71 et seq." Id. at ¶ 12. "Conversely, R.C. 2941.401 is a 'specific' speedy-trial statute applicable only to defendants who are imprisoned in correctional institutions in the State of Ohio and facing charges for crimes separate from those for which they are already imprisoned." Id. at ¶ 13. When applicable, each of these speedy-trial statutes is mandatory and "must be strictly complied with by the trial court." Id.
{¶12} This Court has held that, "when a person who is imprisoned in an Ohio correctional institution is charged with a crime separate from the crime for which they are imprisoned, R.C. 2941.401 applies to the exclusion of R.C. 2945.71." Irish at ¶ 17; see also R.C. 2945.71(F). '"In its plainest language, R.C. 2941.401 grants an incarcerated defendant a chance to have all pending charges resolved in a timely manner, thereby preventing the state from delaying prosecution until after the defendant has been released from his prison term."' Irish at ¶ 13, quoting State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308, 2004-Ohio-969, 804 N.E.2d 471, ¶ 25. Specifically, the statute states, in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial