State v. Johnson

Summary

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals addressed consolidated appeals by Jamar Johnson from misdemeanor probation-violation sentences in two Toledo Municipal Court cases. The court held that Johnson lacked jurisdiction to appeal several additional cases, did not move to withdraw the pleas at issue in these appeals, and received an excessive-process violation because he lacked notice of the alleged community-control violations. The court vacated the probation-violation findings in the two properly appealed cases while affirming the remaining portions of the sentencing judgment, including the appeal bond.

Holdings

1. The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review cases added to Johnson's amended notice of appeal because he neither timely appealed them nor obtained leave to file delayed appeals, and the court had not granted leave to amend.
2. The trial court did not improperly deny a motion to withdraw the pleas at issue in this appeal because Johnson's request concerned no-contest pleas entered in three other 2017 cases, not the pleas in the two properly appealed cases.
3. The trial court abused its discretion and violated Johnson's due-process rights by finding community-control violations in cases CRB-17-01948 and TRD-17-03192 without a subsequent written notice identifying the conduct alleged to constitute the violations.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by setting Johnson's appeal bond at $100,000.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction over four additional cases listed for the first time in an amended notice of appeal filed more than 30 days after the relevant judgments, without leave to amend or a delayed-appeal authorization.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Johnson's request to withdraw his pleas without a hearing.
3. Whether the trial court violated due process by finding that Johnson violated community control in cases CRB-17-01948 and TRD-17-03192 without notice of the conduct constituting the alleged violations.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting Johnson's appeal bond at $100,000.
5. Whether arguments concerning the 2015 case and case CRB-16-13843 were properly before the appellate court.

Disposition

other