COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
 
                      COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
 
                           NO. 84861
 
STATE OF OHIO                 :
                              :
          Plaintiff-Appellee :
                              :         JOURNAL ENTRY
                              :
    vs.                       :              and
                              :
                              :            OPINION
PATRYCK CRAIG                 :
                              :
          Defendant-Appellant :
 
 
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                      March 17, 2005
 
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:          Criminal appeal from
                                  Court of Common Pleas
                                  Case No. CR-400051
 
JUDGMENT:                         REVERSED AND SENTENCE
                                  VACATED
 
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:           ____________________
 
APPEARANCES:
 
For Plaintiff-Appellee:           WILLIAM D. MASON
                                  Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                  BRENDAN SHEEHAN, Assistant
                                  1200 Ontario Street
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44113
 
For Defendant-Appellant:          PAUL MANCINO, JR.
                                  75 Public Square, Suite 1016
                                  Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2098
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -2-
 
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.:
 
     Defendant-appellant Patryck Craig ("Craig") appeals the trial
 
court's order imposing a prison term after finding that he violated
 
the conditions of community control. Finding merit to this appeal,
 
we reverse and vacate the sentence.
 
     Craig pled guilty to one count of attempted escape.    On June
 
4, 2001, he was sentenced to two years of community control. At
 
the time of sentencing, Craig was on parole from a 1994 felonious
 
assault case. The trial court adopted the conditions imposed for
 
parole supervision as part of his community control sanction, which
 
included alcohol and drug treatment.
 
     On June 26, 2003, Craig was sentenced to three years in prison
 
for violating the conditions of his community control, namely,
 
failing to appear for a community control hearing and testing
 
positive for marijuana on June 6, 2002 and August 1, 2002.
 
     Craig appeals, raising three assignments of error.
 
     Because we find the third assignment of error dispositive, we
 
will address it first.
 
     In his third assignment of error, Craig argues that the trial
 
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose a prison
 
sentence because his community control had expired. The State
 
concedes this error and we agree.
 
     It is well settled that a trial court loses jurisdiction to
 
impose any penalty for a defendant's violation of his community
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                -3-
 
control sanctions once the defendant 's term of community control
 
has expired. State v. Lawless, Muskingum App. No. 03-CA-30, 2004-
 
Ohio-5344, relying on Davis v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 549, 2001-Ohio-
 
1281 and State v. Yates (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 78; State v. Sharp,
 
Cuyahoga App. No. 79230, 2002-Ohio-4028; State v. Ogletree (Aug. 2,
 
2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78306. See, also, R.C. 2951.09 ("At the
 
end or termination of the period of probation, the jurisdiction of
 
the judge or magistrate to impose sentence ceases and the defendant
 
shall be discharged.").1 In the instant case, Craig was sentenced
 
on June 26, 2003, 22 days after the expiration of his community
 
control period. Accordingly, because the trial court lacked
 
jurisdiction to impose any sentence, we are constrained to vacate
 
the sentence.
 
     In finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
 
sentence Craig, the remaining assignments of error challenging his
 
prison sentence are moot.
 
     Judgment reversed and sentence vacated.
 
 
 
 
     1
     Since the passage of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 2, which changed Ohio's
felony sentencing laws,   "community control sanctions "have now
essentially replaced the concept of "probation." State v. Evans,
Meigs App. No. 00CA003, 2000-Ohio-2025; State v. Cooks (1997), 125
Ohio App.3d 116. Thus, in the context of this statute, the term
"probation"has the same meaning as "community control."
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                  -4-
 
     It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee his costs
 
herein taxed.
 
     It is ordered that a special mandate issue from this court to
 
the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 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.
 
 
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J. and
 
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J. CONCUR
 
 
                                 ______________________________
                                      COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY
                                             JUDGE
 
 
 
 
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).
 
.