COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59354, 59355 : STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : and -vs- : : OPINION : COLLINS HARRIS : : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT NOVEMBER 21, 1991 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-227160 JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: KAREN L. JOHNSON JONATHAN GARVER Assistant County Prosecutor 1404 E. 9th Street Justice Center, 8th floor Suite 300 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 4411 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, J.: The State of Ohio timely appeals the trial court's nunc pro tunc order that granted Collins Y. Harris' motion to modify his sentence. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the motion to modify the sentence that was ordered into execution and commenced on May 10, 1989. In each of the two cases sub judice, appellee entered pleas of guilty to one count of trafficking in drugs (cocaine) in violation of R.C. 2925.03 and one count of drug abuse (cocaine) in violation of R.C. 2925.11. On September 12, 1988, the trial court sentenced appellee in both cases: In Case No. 59354, appellee was sentenced to a definite term of two years and fined $1,000.00 for drug trafficking and a definite term of one and one half years for drug abuse to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to the sentence in Case No. 59355. The trial court suspended the sentence, and appellee was placed on five years probation with court costs assessed. In Case No. 59355, appellee was sentenced to a definite term of two years for drug trafficking and a definite term of one and one half years for drug abuse to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to the sentence in Case No. 59354. The trial court suspended the sentence and appellee was placed on five years probation and assessed court costs. On May 10, 1989, the trial court found appellee in violation -3- of his probation in both cases and reinstated the original sentences and ordered the sentences into execution. On October 20, 1989, appellee filed a motion to modify his sentence. On January 17, 1990, the trial court granted appellee's motion. The two-year sentences were reduced to one year and the one and one half year sentences were reduced to one half year. The language "consecutively" was deleted so all sentences would run concurrent. Thus, appellee's aggregate sentence of seven years was reduced to one year. Appellant timely appeals the trial court's modification of the sentence, and the cases are consolidated for briefing and disposition. Appellant's sole assignment of error is as follows: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN MODIFYING DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE, AS ONCE A VALID SENTENCE IS ORDERED INTO EXECUTION, IT LACKS JURISDICTION TO MODIFY THE SENTENCE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Once a valid sentence has been commenced, the trial court no longer has power to modify the sentence except as provided by the legislature. State v. Addison (1987), 40 Ohio App. 3d 7. See also, State v. Hudack (Jan. 24, 1991), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 57998, 57999. This standard applies to reductions in sentences, as well as increases in sentencing. Compare, Addison with Brook Park v. Necak (1986), 30 Ohio App. 3d 118. Appellee argues that the trial court has inherent power to modify any sentence. We disagree. This inherent power is limited to modification of invalid sentences. (Emphasis added.) -4- See, State v. Smith (1989), 42 Ohio St. 3d 60. (held statutory mandate of actual incarceration precludes granting probation); State v. Beasley (1984), 14 Ohio St. 3d 74. (held correction of sentence that was less than statutory minimum not violative of Double Jeopardy Clause). In the case, sub judice, the original sentence of appellee was valid. The modification of the original sentence by the trial court did not comport with any legislative grant of power. Therefore, the trial court was without authority to modify appellee's sentence after it had commenced. Appellant's sole assignment of error is well taken. The modification of the appellee's sentence is vacated and the original sentence is reinstated. This cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to direct the clerk of courts to forward a certified copy of this journal entry to the institution to which defendant is sentenced. Judgment reversed and remanded. -5- This cause is reversed and remanded. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of appellee its costs herein taxed. 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. Exceptions. KRUPANSKY, C.J., and DAVID T. MATIA, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .