State v. Wright
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Wright, 2004-Ohio-4474.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 83284 STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THOMAS WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellee DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: : : : : : : : : : : : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION AUGUST 26, 2004 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court, Case No. CR-432823. JUDGMENT: REVERSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Perry M. Kendall, Jr. Gail D. Baker Jon W. Oebker Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys The Justice Center, 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 For Defendant-Appellee: Robert L. Tobik Cuyahoga County Public Defender Paul Kuzmins Assistant Public Defender 1200 West Third Street 100 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 [Cite as State v. Wright, 2004-Ohio-4474.] TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, J. {¶1} Plaintiff-Appellee, the State of Ohio, appeals from the trial court s order dismissing this case. recent decision by the Ohio Supreme In light of the Court in State v. Thompson, 102 Ohio St.3d 287, 2004-Ohio-2946, we reverse and remand. {¶2} On April 1, 2002, defendant-appellee, Thomas Wright, began a term of parole supervision with the Adult Parole Authority in connection with a crime he committed prior to July 1, 1996, the date of the enactment of Senate Bill 2. In January 2003, as a result of Wright s alleged failure to report to his parole officer after September 2002, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted him on one count of escape, in violation of R.C. 2921.34. The trial court subsequently dismissed the case in reliance on this court s opinion in State v. Thompson, Cuyahoga App. No. 78919, 2002Ohio-6478, in which we held that a parolee sentenced on an underlying conviction prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 2 cannot later be charged with escape. {¶3} The Ohio Supreme Court court s ruling in Thompson, however. recently reversed this The Supreme Court held that a parolee who fails to report to his parole officer after March 17, 1998,1 may be prosecuted for escape under R.C. 1 R.C. 2967.15(C)(2) was amended on March 17, 1998 to provide 4 2921.34, regardless of when his or her underlying crime was committed. Id. at 290. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court reasoned that the date of the underlying offense is of no consequence because the parole violation is a new criminal offense, unrelated to conduct that led to the prior conviction. {¶4} Although we agree with the Chief Justice s dissent in Thompson, we are constrained to find that the trial court erred in dismissing this case. Appellant s assignment of error is sustained. Reversed. that parolees were among prosecuted for escape. the class of persons who could be [Cite as State v. Wright, 2004-Ohio-4474.] This cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein. It is, therefore, ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE JUDGE JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCURS. FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY. N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). [Cite as State v. Wright, 2004-Ohio-4474.]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
