Login | November 28, 2024
Sex offender not properly notified of community service requirements
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: February 19, 2014
A Geauga County trial court erred by not informing a Chardon man of community service requirements for failure to pay costs in his rape case, the 11th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.
Jon Glus pleaded guilty to two counts of rape and one count of pandering obscenity involving a minor. He was sentenced to two consecutive 10-year terms on the rape counts and five years on the pandering count, to be served concurrently with the the rape terms. He was also labeled a Tier III sex offender.
Glus filed a delayed appeal about five months after sentencing that the plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.
According to case summary, the original attorney asked permission to withdraw as appellate counsel because he found the appeal “wholly frivolous.”
Meanwhile, while reviewing the entire trial record, the panel found the trial judge may have not followed procedure in imposing court costs. A new attorney was then appointed to submit a second brief regarding the costs issue.
In a 3-0 opinion written by 11th District Judge Thomas R. Wright, the 11th District dismissed the original appeal issue as frivolous.
However, the panel ordered the case remanded so the trial court can hold a new limited hearing for oral notification under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1), which requires judges to notify defendants that failure to pay costs of prosecution can result in community service of up to 40 hours per month.
The code also requires judges to notify defendants they will receive credit at an hourly credit rate per hour of community service, and that each hour of community service performed will reduce the judgment by that amount.
Judges Colleen Mary O’Toole and Diane V. Grendell concurred.
However, Grendell added that the appellate court should have had the initial defense attorney handle further briefing to save time.
“This matter should have been resolved by the issuance of an opinion reversing and remanding to the trial court for the limited purpose of providing Glus the proper notification,” Grendell wrote in a concurring opinion. “… Based solely on the unnecessary appointment of new counsel and the additional briefing period, a delay of almost two months was added to the disposition of this appeal.”
The case is cited State v. Glus, 2014-Ohio-245.