State v. Ball
Facts
Ball pleaded guilty to one count of obstructing official business, a fifth-degree felony. The trial court sentenced him to one year in prison and also imposed 515 days, described as the balance of his existing postrelease-control time, to run consecutively. During the plea colloquy, the court told Ball it could impose any remaining postrelease-control time in addition to or consecutively with the new sentence, and Ball said he understood. At sentencing, Ball agreed the remaining balance was one year and five months, which the court treated as 515 days.
Issue
Whether Ball's sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) because the trial court imposed 515 days for the postrelease-control violation and did not expressly state that imposing that prison term terminated Ball's earlier postrelease control.
Rule
Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may modify or vacate a felony sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support relevant statutory findings or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law when the trial court considers R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, imposes a sentence within the statutory range, and properly imposes postrelease control. Under R.C. 2929.141(A)(1), a court may impose the balance of a defendant's remaining postrelease-control time consecutively, and imposing that prison term terminates the earlier period of postrelease control by operation of law.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
On appeal, Devin argues only that the sentence is too harsh and should be reduced because the appellate court would have weighed the sentencing factors differently. Under the governing rule, what is the best answer?