State v. Hardnett

[Cite as State v. Hardnett, 2026-Ohio-4021.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2026-P-0013 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas MICHAEL L. HARDNETT, Trial Court No. 2025 CR 00718 Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: October 13, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Timothy P. Bogner, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Donald K. Pond, Jr., 190 North Union Street, Suite 102, Akron, OH 44304 (For Defendant-Appellant). ROBERT J. PATTON, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Michael L. Hardnett (“Hardnett”), appeals the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to a 24-month prison term following his guilty pleas and convictions for abduction, identity fraud, and aggravated menacing. {¶2} On appeal, Hardnett argues that his sentence is contrary to law as the trial judge failed to accurately state the potential penalties contained in R.C. 2929.141(A)(1) for committing a new felony while subject to post-release control. Specifically, Hardnett argues that the trial court incorrectly advised him that, if he commits a new felony while subject to post-release control, in addition to any prison term for that felony, he could receive up to 12 additional months which would run consecutively. {¶3} Upon review, although Hardnett is correct that the trial court’s advisement was an inaccurate or otherwise incomplete statement of the law, we find that there is no constitutional or statutory requirement for the trial court to advise a defendant of the penalties contained in R.C. 2929.141(A)(1) where the defendant has not yet violated post- release control. Therefore, Hardnett cannot prevail on this issue as Hardnett was only sentenced for his initial convictions, not a subsequent violation of post-release control. {¶4} Accordingly, the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Substantive and Procedural Facts {¶5} A Portage County Grand Jury indicted Hardnett on five counts: one count of abduction, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2905.02 (“Count 1”), one count of disrupting public services, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2909.04 (“Count 2”), one count of identity fraud, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2913.49 (“Count 3”), one count of assault, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2903.13 (“Count 4”), and one count of aggravated menacing, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2903.21 (“Count 5”). At arraignment, Hardnett pleaded not guilty to the charges. {¶6} Following negotiations, Hardnett changed his plea to guilty on Counts 1, 3, and 5 in exchange for the State’s dismissal of Counts 2 and 4. After accepting Hardnett’s plea following a Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, the trial court ordered a presentence investigation. PAGE 2 OF 6 Case No. 2026-P-0013  {¶7} At sentencing, the trial court ordered a 24-month prison term on Count 1, a 12-month prison term on Count 3, and 6 months in jail on Count 5, with all to run concurrently. Thus, Hardnett’s aggregate sentence was 24 months. Following the pronouncement, the trial court advised Hardnett on post-release control and stated: Upon your release from prison, the Adult Parol Authority will supervise you anywhere from one to three years. During that time . . . if you commit a new felony, that time could be run consecutively with whatever you have left on your post release control time up to one year.1 The Appeal {¶8} Hardnett timely appeals and raises one assignment of error for review: [1.] The trial court erred in the imposition of sentence upon [Hardnett]. {¶9} In his sole assignment of error, Hardnett argues that his sentence is contrary to law as the trial court misstated the law under R.C. 2929.141(A)(1). We disagree. {¶10} The standard of review for felony sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which provides: The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court. The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its 1. The trial court’s advisement incorrectly implies that the maximum additional prison term under R.C. 2929.141(A)(1) would be limited to one year. The plain language of R.C. 2929.141(A)(1) states that the court may, “[i]n addition to any prison term for the new felony, impose a prison term for the post-release control violation. The maximum prison term for the violation shall be the greater of twelve months or the period of post-release control for the earlier felony minus any time the person has spent under post-release control for the earlier felony.” PAGE 3 OF 6 Case No. 2026-P-0013  discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. {¶11} “‘A sentence is contrary to law when it does not fall within the statutory range for the offense or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.’” State v. Shannon, 2021-Ohio-789, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio- 8416, ¶ 74 (2d Dist.). {¶12} The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that there is no requirement that a trial court notify an offender at his initial sentencing hearing of the penalty provisions contained in R.C. 2929.141(A)(1) and (2). State v. Gordon, 2018-Ohio-1975, ¶ 2. “‘[A]ny advisement that a sentence for the violation of post-release control arising from the commission of a new felony will be served consecutively to the sentence for the new felony offense is only required during the plea hearing for the new felony offense.’” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Givens, 2024-Ohio-2563, ¶ 54 (7th Dist.), quoting State v. Sullivan, 2023-Ohio-1036, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.). {¶13} This case involves an initial sentencing hearing—not a case containing a sentence for the violation of post-release control. Therefore, at this time, Hardnett is not subject to penalties under R.C. 2929.141(A). As the trial court had no duty to make any statement about R.C. 2929.141(A) in the first place, an incorrect statement about that PAGE 4 OF 6 Case No. 2026-P-0013 statute does not transform a non-required advisement into a reversible sentencing error. See Gordon at ¶ 9 (“when the notifications provided by a trial court could be more thorough but nevertheless satisfy the statutory requirements, the trial court does not err in deciding not to provide more thorough notification.”) Hardnett’s sentence satisfies the statutory requirements, contains the notices that were required, and is within the statutory range. Accordingly, his sentence is not contrary to law. {¶14} Hardnett’s sole assignment of error is without merit. Conclusion {¶15} For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. MATT LYNCH, P.J., EUGENE A. LUCCI, J., concur. PAGE 5 OF 6 Case No. 2026-P-0013  JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignment of error is without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant. JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH, concurs JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI, concurs THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. PAGE 6 OF 6 Case No. 2026-P-0013