State v. Holland
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Holland, 2011-Ohio-6042.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vsBRIAN E. HOLLAND Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Case No. 11-CA-47 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10-CR-628 JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 18, 2011 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant BRIAN WALTZ 20 South Second Street 4th Floor Newark, OH 43055 WILLIAM T. CRAMER 470 Olde Worthington Road Suite 200 Westerville, OH 43082 Licking County, Case No. 11-CA-47 2 Farmer, J. {¶1} On November 12, 2010, the Licking County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Brian Holland, on one count of illegally manufacturing drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.04 and one count of illegally assembling or possessing chemicals for the manufacture of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.041. A jury trial commenced on March 22, 2011. The jury found appellant guilty. By judgment entry filed March 23, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant to seven years in prison, and included a provision that appellant was not to be considered or released on transitional control. {¶2} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignment of error is as follows: I {¶3} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY INCLUDING IN THE SENTENCING ENTRY A PROVISION THAT APPELLANT IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OR RELEASED ON TRANSITIONAL CONTROL." I {¶4} Appellant claims the trial court erred by including in the sentencing entry a provision that he is not to be considered or released on transitional control. We agree. {¶5} Based upon this court's well reasoned opinion in State v. Spears, Licking App. No. 10-CA-95, 2011-Ohio-1538, ¶34-38, this assignment of error is granted. Licking County, Case No. 11-CA-47 {¶6} 3 The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio is hereby reversed, and the matter is remanded to said court for resentencing without the transitional control language. By Farmer, J. Hoffman, P.J. and Delaney, J. concur. s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________ s/ William B. Hoffman___________ s/ Patricia A. Delaney_______________ JUDGES SGF/sg 1026 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vsBRIAN E. HOLLAND Defendant-Appellant : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY CASE NO. 11-CA-47 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio is reversed, and the matter is remanded to said court for resentencing without the transitional control language. Costs to appellee. s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________ s/ William B. Hoffman___________ s/ Patricia A. Delaney_______________ JUDGES
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.
