State v. Mansfield, Unpublished Decision (11-9-2005)
State v. Mansfield, Unpublished Decision (11-9-2005)
Opinion of the Court
Defendant-appellant Bobby Mansfield pleaded guilty to two counts of nonsupport of dependents, in violation of R.C.
Mansfield failed to pay child support as ordered. He also failed to complete his community-service hours. The trial court found Mansfield guilty of violating the terms of his community control and sentenced him to two concurrent terms of nine months' incarceration.
The sole assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred in imposing more than the minimum sentence on Mansfield. The minimum sentence for each nonsupport count was six months' incarceration. The trial court sentenced Mansfield to nine months' incarceration on each count.
In State v. Montgomery,
The trial court imposed more than the minimum sentence upon Mansfield for each of the nonsupport convictions based upon the findings that minimum sentences would demean the seriousness of Mansfield's crimes and fail to adequately protect the public. Neither of the findings was based upon a history of prior convictions or juvenile adjudications. Mansfield's record consisted of traffic offenses and citations for failing to register dogs. Therefore, the trial court's findings were unconstitutional pursuant to Montgomery.
If a sentencing scheme is found to be unconstitutional under Blakely,
the court should "apply the pertinent statutes without any enhancement provision found to be unconstitutional." See State ex rel. Mason v.Griffin,
The two counts of nonsupport of dependents were felonies of the fifth degree, for which the minimum sentences are six months' incarceration. Mansfield's sentence on each nonsupport count is hereby modified to six months' incarceration from the nine months' incarceration imposed by the trial court. The assignment of error is sustained.
Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified with respect to the sentence.
Further, a certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate, which shall be sent to the trial court under App.R. 27. Costs shall be taxed under App.R. 24.
Doan, P.J., Sundermann and Hendon, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.