State v. Baker

In State v. Baker, 152 Ohio App.3d 138, 2002 Ohio 7295, 787 N.E.2d 17, the trial judge imposed a prison term of eighteen months for a fourth degree felony theft charge, and the trial court then suspended the sentence, similar to the situation in the instant case in which the court held the prison sentence in abeyance. The trial judge in Baker further ordered the defendant to complete a 6-month treatment program and to serve five years of community control sanctions. The defendant in Baker did not appeal that judgment. The defendant in Baker then violated the terms of probation and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. The defendant committed subsequent probation violations, and the court revoked probation and reimposed the original 18-month prison term. In Baker, the defendant argued that the court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5). In reviewing the defendant's argument, the Court held that: "Whether or not the trial court properly imposed a prison term and then suspended the sentence is certainly an issue which this court has authority to review, and we have reviewed similar errors many times. If appellant disagreed with the trial court's original judgment which imposed a prison term and then suspended sentence, he should have filed a direct appeal of the original sentencing order. If a sentencing error could have been raised in a direct appeal and was not raised, that error is deemed to have been waived. State v. Combs (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 823, 825, 598 N.E.2d 815. As this court recently stated: