Yonkings v. Wilkinson

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

86 Ohio St.3d 225

.]




             YONKINGS, APPELLANT, v. WILKINSON ET AL., APPELLEES.
                    [Cite as Yonkings v. Wilkinson, 

1999-Ohio-98

.]
Criminal law—Penalties and sentencing—Multiple sentences—Former R.C.
         2929.41(E)(2) did not apply to definite sentences.
       (No. 98-1305—Submitted May 25, 1999—Decided August 25, 1999.)
   APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APE08-1083.
                                     __________________
         {¶ 1} Charles B. Yonkings, appellant, was convicted in 1990 of multiple
counts of theft, grand theft, robbery, and passing bad checks. He was sentenced to
multiple definite terms of two years or less each, to be served consecutively, for a
total of twenty-one and one-half years.1 He was also sentenced to an indefinite
term of three to fifteen years, to be served concurrently with the definite sentences.
         {¶ 2} Appellant originally filed a mandamus action against appellees, the
Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and others,
requesting that the total of his definite sentences of twenty-one and one-half years
be reduced pursuant to former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2). However, the Court of Appeals
for Franklin County denied the writ, finding that appellant had an adequate remedy
at law by way of declaratory judgment. State ex rel. Yonkings v. Ohio Dept. of
Rehab. & Corr. (Oct. 28, 1993), Franklin App. No. 93AP-655, unreported, 

1993 WL 435190

, affirmed (1994), 

69 Ohio St.3d 70

, 

630 N.E.2d 365

. Appellant then
proceeded to file a declaratory judgment action against appellees, seeking
application of former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) to limit his consecutive definite terms of



1. The parties and the lower courts all seem to agree that the total of appellant’s consecutive definite
sentences is twenty-one and one-half years. The record appears to indicate that the correct total is
twenty-four and one-half years. However, since the question is not presented to us, for the sake of
consistency, we will adopt the total used by the parties.
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




imprisonment to fifteen years maximum.           The trial court granted summary
judgment in appellant’s favor and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that the
fifteen-year limit on aggregate minimum terms set forth in former R.C.
2929.41(E)(2) applied to definite terms of imprisonment as well as indefinite terms.
Yonkings v. Wilkinson (1996), 

110 Ohio App.3d 319

, 

674 N.E.2d 388

.                   A
discretionary appeal of that decision was not allowed. Yonkings v. Wilkinson
(1996), 

76 Ohio St.3d 1434

, 

667 N.E.2d 985

.
       {¶ 3} Because appellees failed to change appellant’s sentence in accordance
with the trial court’s decision, appellant filed a motion for contempt asking the court
to enforce its declaration that he had a right to the reduction. In an apparent attempt
to comply, appellee then changed appellant’s sentence to a term of fifteen to
twenty-four and one-half years. The trial court denied appellant’s contempt motion,
but found that appellant’s sentence was still not correct. The trial court reasoned
that since appellant’s 21.5-year definite sentence was to be served concurrently
with a three-to-fifteen-year indefinite sentence, R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) required the
minimum terms of three years and 21.5 years to be combined and reduced to fifteen
years. That minimum was diminishable by jail time credits and time served. Those
credits would also reduce appellant’s maximum term. According to the trial court,
“[t]he 15 year maximum term from the 3 to 15 year concurrent sentence remains as
[appellant’s] maximum term.        The result is that [appellant] has a 15 year
diminishable minimum term and a 15 year maximum sentence.” However, the
court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that the fifteen-
year cap in former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) set a fifteen-year limit on aggregate
minimum terms, but did not impose a maximum cap. Accordingly, the court of
appeals held that appellant’s record should be changed to reflect that he is serving
a sentence of fifteen to twenty-one and one-half years.
       {¶ 4} The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a
discretionary appeal.




                                          2
                                January Term, 1999




                              __________________
       David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Thomas R. Wetterer, Jr.,
Senior Staff Attorney, for appellant.
       Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Brian M. Zets, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellees.
                              __________________
       FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J.
       {¶ 5} The issue in this case is whether former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) limited a
defendant’s total definite sentence to fifteen years where the defendant had been
sentenced to consecutive definite sentences in excess of that amount. Both parties
in this case have based their arguments on the assumption that former R.C.
2929.41(E)(2) applied to definite terms of imprisonment. However, because we
find that former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) did not apply to definite sentences, we reverse
the judgment of the court of appeals.
       {¶ 6} When appellant was sentenced, former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) stated:
       “Consecutive terms of imprisonment imposed shall not exceed
       “***
       “(2) An aggregate minimum term of fifteen years plus the sum of all three-
year terms of actual incarceration imposed pursuant to section 2929.71 of the
Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.) 142 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1886.
       {¶ 7} In Yonkings v. Wilkinson (1996), 

110 Ohio App.3d 319

, 

674 N.E.2d 388

, the Franklin County Court of Appeals found that former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2)
applied to both definite and indefinite terms of imprisonment because the statute’s
language made no distinction between indefinite and definite terms. Furthermore,
the court found that the reference to a “minimum” term in former R.C.
2929.41(E)(2) included definite terms even though such terms have no range
defined by a minimum and a maximum because “a minimum term in a determinate
sentence is the entire determinate sentence.” 

Id. at 320

, 

674 N.E.2d at 389

.




                                        3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




However, we believe that this reasoning is flawed and that the fifteen-year cap
imposed by R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) was never meant to apply to definite sentences.
       {¶ 8} When construing a statute, this court’s paramount concern is the
legislative intent in enacting the statute. State v. S.R. (1992), 

63 Ohio St.3d 590, 594

, 

589 N.E.2d 1319, 1323

. Furthermore, “words must be taken in their usual,
normal or customary meaning.” 

Id. at 595

, 

589 N.E.2d at 1323

. A “definite”
sentence is just what its name implies: a specific number of years of imprisonment
rather than a range defined by minimum and maximum terms. Referring to a
minimum or maximum term of imprisonment makes sense only when speaking of
an indefinite sentence. This was recognized in the 1973 Legislative Service
Commission Comment to the original version of R.C. 2929.41: “When consecutive
sentences for felony are imposed, the minimum and maximum terms are separately
totalled to determine a single minimum and a single maximum. For example, if an
offender is sentenced to 2 to 5 years for grand theft and 7 to 25 years for aggravated
robbery, the sentence to be served is 9 to 30 years. The total minimum term,
however, may not exceed 20 years when one of the sentences is for aggravated
murder, and may not exceed 15 years in other cases.”
       {¶ 9} Confusion arose over former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) because it did not
explicitly state whether it applied to both definite and indefinite sentences. Rather,
it stated only that the aggregate “minimum” term of consecutive sentences shall not
exceed fifteen years. The court of appeals in this case had previously found that
the statute’s reference to a minimum term encompassed definite terms. However,
we have held that a “cardinal rule” of statutory construction is that all statutes
relating to the same general subject matter must be read in pari materia. Cater v.
Cleveland (1998), 

83 Ohio St.3d 24, 29

, 

697 N.E.2d 610

, 615. In examining former
R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) in relation to R.C. Chapter 2967, regarding pardon, parole, and
probation, it becomes evident that the term “minimum” as used in former R.C.
2929.41(E)(2) was meant to apply only to indefinite sentences. For example,




                                          4
                               January Term, 1999




former R.C. 2967.13(A) stated that “[a] prisoner serving a sentence of
imprisonment for a felony for which an indefinite term of imprisonment is imposed
becomes eligible for parole at the expiration of his minimum term.” (Emphasis
added.) 142 Ohio Laws, Part III, 5010. Contrast this with former R.C. 2967.13(K),
which provided that “[a] prisoner serving a definite term of imprisonment for a
felony of the third or fourth degree shall be released from imprisonment when he
has served the full term of his definite sentence.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 5011.
Furthermore, former R.C. 2967.19, now repealed, which concerned the reduction
of sentences for good time, referred to the reduction of a “minimum or definite”
term of imprisonment. (Emphasis added.) 143 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1483. Likewise,
former R.C. 2967.191 stated that the parole authority could reduce “the minimum
and maximum sentence or the definite sentence” of a prisoner in certain
circumstances. (Emphasis added.) 139 Ohio Laws, Part I, 582. Finally, former
R.C. 2967.25, now repealed, stated that “[a] person serving several indeterminate
sentences consecutively becomes eligible for parole upon the expiration of the
aggregate of the minimum terms of his several sentences diminished as provided in
section 2967.19 of the Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.) 134 Ohio Laws, Part II,
2006. Throughout R.C. Chapter 2967, the words “minimum” and “maximum” are
repeatedly used in referring to indefinite sentences. Nowhere throughout this
statutory framework is a definite term referred to in such terminology. When
former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) is read in pari materia with these sections, it becomes
obvious that the cap on aggregate minimum terms was meant to apply only to
indefinite sentences.
       {¶ 10} Additionally, we must “construe statutes to avoid unreasonable or
absurd results.” State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Cincinnati (1996), 

76 Ohio St.3d 540, 543

, 

668 N.E.2d 903, 906

.        Appellant’s position is that former R.C.
2929.41(E)(2) applied to definite sentences and since a definite sentence contains
both a minimum and maximum term, former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) limited




                                        5
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




consecutive sentences totalling more than fifteen years to the maximum of fifteen
years. Such an interpretation would result in the automatic release of all defendants
at fifteen years regardless of the number or severity of their crimes and would
destroy a trial court’s discretion in determining whether consecutive sentences
beyond fifteen years were appropriate. On the other hand, if we were to affirm the
judgment of the court of appeals and hold that former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) applied
to the minimum aspect of a definite sentence, but not the maximum aspect, we
would in effect create an indefinite sentence of fifteen to twenty-one and one-half
years out of a definite sentence of twenty-one and one-half years. This result would
undoubtedly thwart the legislature’s intent by converting a definite sentence into a
de facto indefinite sentence. Under either interpretation, attempting to apply the
statute to a definite sentence results in illogical results that were never intended by
the General Assembly. Therefore, we disapprove the court of appeals’ decision in
Yonkings v. Wilkinson, 

110 Ohio App.3d 319

, 

674 N.E.2d 388

, and find that former
R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) did not apply to definite sentences.
        {¶ 11} Appellant also argues that the case should be dismissed because a
ruling on a contempt motion is not a final appealable order unless there is a finding
of contempt and a sanction or penalty has been imposed. See Chain Bike Corp. v.
Spoke ’N Wheel, Inc. (1979), 

64 Ohio App.2d 62, 64

, 

18 O.O.3d 43, 44

, 

410 N.E.2d 802, 803

. However, the trial court’s order did not merely deny appellant’s motion
to find appellees in contempt. Instead, the judgment entry ordered appellees to
correct appellant’s record regarding his sentence. An order is a final appealable
order if it affects a substantial right and in effect determines the action and prevents
a judgment. R.C. 2505.02(B)(1); Cleveland v. Trzebuckowski (1999), 

85 Ohio St.3d 524, 526

, 

709 N.E.2d 1148, 1150

. In this case, the trial court ordered appellee
to correct appellant’s sentence, thus affecting a substantial right. The order also
determined the action because it answered the only question presented by the
action: whether appellant’s sentence must be changed in accordance with its order.




                                           6
                                 January Term, 1999




Finally, the order prevented a judgment in appellees’ favor declaring that former
R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) affected only the minimum term of incarceration. Therefore,
the denial of the motion of contempt in this case was a final appealable order.
          {¶ 12} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s sentence should be changed to
reflect that he is serving a twenty-one and one-half-year definite sentence.
                                                                 Judgment reversed
                                                               and cause remanded.
          MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ.,
concur.
          PFEIFER, J., dissents, would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals,
and would reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
                                __________________




                                          7