The Ohio Court of Appeals issued a ruling on July 6, 2026, regarding the case of Richard Smale Jr., who faced sentencing for domestic violence and felonious assault. The court's decision impacts how sentences can be structured for those convicted of multiple offenses. This ruling is crucial for defendants and legal practitioners alike, as it clarifies the limits of sentencing authority in Ohio.
Richard Smale Jr. was the defendant in two cases: Case Number 9-25-38 involved a charge of Domestic Violence, while Case Number 9-25-39 included charges of Felonious Assault and Domestic Violence. Both cases originated in the Marion County Court of Common Pleas. The legal dispute arose after Smale pleaded guilty to the charges and was subsequently sentenced.
In Case Number 9-25-38, Smale was charged with Domestic Violence, a fourth-degree felony. In Case Number 9-25-39, he faced a more serious charge of Felonious Assault, a second-degree felony, along with another Domestic Violence charge. After initially pleading not guilty, Smale changed his pleas to guilty in December 2025. The court accepted these pleas and ordered a presentence investigation.
During the sentencing hearing on December 16, 2025, the court sentenced Smale to two to three years in prison for the Felonious Assault charge in Case Number 9-25-39. Concurrently, he received a five-year term of community control for the Domestic Violence charge in Case Number 9-25-38. However, this community control sentence included a condition that Smale must complete a term at a community-based correctional facility (CBCF) after serving his prison sentence.
Following the sentencing, Smale appealed the judgments in both cases, leading to the consolidated appeal heard by the Ohio Court of Appeals. In his appeal, Smale argued that the trial court unlawfully imposed a term of confinement at a CBCF to be served consecutively to his prison term. He claimed this was contrary to the law, referencing a previous ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Paige.
The Ohio Court of Appeals examined Smale's arguments and the relevant legal precedents. The court noted that under Ohio law, specifically R.C. 2929.41(A), prison terms must generally be served concurrently unless exceptions apply. The court also referenced the case of State v. Paige, where the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a term of confinement in a CBCF is considered a sentence of imprisonment and must run concurrently with any prison term.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Smale regarding the community control sentence in Case Number 9-25-38. The court found that the imposition of a CBCF term following a prison sentence was not authorized by statute, thus reversing that part of the sentence. The court stated, "the trial court had no authority to order, as part of the community-control sentence in Case Number 9-25-38, that Smale be placed in a CBCF after completing the prison term for a separate offense." However, the court upheld the sentencing in Case Number 9-25-39, affirming the prison sentence for Felonious Assault.
This ruling clarifies the limitations on sentencing for defendants facing multiple charges in Ohio. It emphasizes that while community control can be part of a sentence, it cannot include conditions that require confinement in a CBCF after serving a prison term for a different offense. This decision is significant for future cases, as it sets a clear precedent regarding the structure of sentences involving community control and prison terms.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Richard Smale Jr. It affects how courts in Ohio will handle similar cases in the future, ensuring that sentences comply with statutory requirements. Defendants in Ohio can expect more consistent application of sentencing rules, particularly regarding the interplay between prison terms and community control sanctions.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Smale will seek further appeals regarding the upheld prison sentence in Case Number 9-25-39. Additionally, the ruling may prompt other defendants with similar sentencing issues to challenge their sentences based on the precedent established in this case.