By Meladi Brewer

DailyAdvocate.com

New Madison — Jessica R. Walker, 47 , of New Madison, appeared for re-sentencing in the Darke County Common Pleas Court Friday. Judge Stephen Wolaver presided.

Walker had appeared for an eight count trial on Jan. 30th and 31st of 2023 addressing accusations reguarding her allegedly hitting a male victim with her car. She was found guilty by a jury of count two, felonious assault, a felony of the second degree; and count four, failure to stop after an accident, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

“We are here today pursuant to a decision by the Second District of Court of Appeals indicating that the court needs to address an additional aspect of sentencing that the court did not do on the original sentencing date,” Judge Wolaver said.

The Court of Appeals did indicate that everything the court had said on the original sentencing on May 18, 2023 was appropriate. Ms. Walker was able to speak, and she addressed the number of jail time credits. Judge Wolaver advised her the credit she had been awarded in May was 91 days in the Darke County Jail. He said she has obviously accumulated more time while in the institution before turning back to the matter at hand.

“Probably, to just cut to the chase, I am putting an additional statement on the record as part of your sentencing that I didn’t do previously, but the bottom line is, nothing is changing. Does that make sense to you” Judge Wolaver asked?

All the previous sentences and requirements dealing with Walker’s out dates are the same, but they are going to only add additional comments about post release control.

“This court date does not case any negativity towards you (Walker) at all by us being back here,” Judge Wolaver said.

Walker addressed Judge Wolaver saying she understood the matter of the court date, but she said she brought up jail time credit because it had been calculated wrong and needed addressed as 102 days is the correct number. Judge Wolaver agreed to look into the matter and credit her 102 days jail time credit if the math matched.

He advised her it will be added to the record and her sentencing if it shows, but they were going to continue on with the at hand matter for this court appearance. Walker thanked him and complied with proceeding past the matter.

Judge Wolaver reminded the court that it had imposed on count two a minimum sentence of four years with a maximum sentence of four and a half years with 91 days jail time credit. The court has issued on record that the 91 days will be addressed and recalculated. In regard to count four the court suspended the defendant’s right to drive for a period of 12 months.

“Now I will address you on the record that based upon your conviction of felonious assault that if you were to serve the entire sentence, upon the release of sentence you would have a mandatory requirement to be on post release control for up to a period of three years but not less than 18 months,” Judge Wolaver said.

He said he wanted Walker to know that if any of the conditions of post release control are violated during the term that the parole board, not the court, could impose a sanction of up to nine months per violation. The total amount of time for the violations could be up to but no more than half the original sentence the court imposed.

The defendant is “ordered” to pay court costs herein, and the court will consider community service in lieu of paying court costs, to be performed while incarcerated, at a rate of at least the federal minimum wage, to be credited against court costs. It was “ordered and decreed” that Walker shall reimburse the State of Ohio and Darke County for costs of processing, supervision, confinement, and prosecution as authorized by law, including other fees.

The court addressed Walker and reiterated what her sentencing and post release control sanctions were. They put on record that she was advised of the consequences, including jail time, that could be imposed if a violation or felony were to be committed while released from prison. These statements completed the re-sentencing, and the court administered a new report to reflect the conversation they had with Ms. Walker regarding her sentencing and post release control.

Walker addressed the court regarding other issues about her “post conviction release petition” and motions for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Enforcement of Judgment of Conviction pending post-conviction proceedings that she filed in January 2024.

“I have still not received service to the state’s responses to those, and I would like to reassert my arguments and replies that I filed on Dec. 15, 2023 about consideration of those. They were served on the wrong inmate number and wrong zip code, so I still have not received those or responded to them,” Walker said.

State Prosecutor Drew Wood addressed the court saying he “is curious to know how Walker knows they were served on the wrong inmate number if she has not received copies.” Walker said they have a messaging system within incarceration, and she was copy and pasted on the certificate of service.

“Also for this sentencing hearing, I was also not served with the continuance request, and that was included with this sentencing order for this hearing. It appears to be the same across all these documents served that date,” Walker said.

Judge Wolaver said he was going to have the state reissue their response and give Walker an opportunity to respond before making a decision on the post conviction release petition, motion for preliminary injunction and stay of enforcement.

A post conviction release petition provides a way to attack a conviction when a defendant claims a denial of constitutional rights that could void their conviction. A preliminary injunction is temporary relief that preserves the status quo until the courts decide on the merits of the case. The relief sought often involves asking a court to prevent an opposing party from taking specific action or continuing a current course of action.

A Stay of Execution is a procedure that, when granted, allows the Courts to suspend any current County Court Judgements (CCJs) against a company to allow time for them to agree on a payment plan or schedule an appeal hearing.

The state asked for Walkers identification number and address again to ensure the paperwork is filed and sent out correctly. In response, Walker advised the court that the state already has the correct information.

“I included that (the address) on the filings and also the state did manage to file the correct inmate ID in my response for motion on Sept. 8th, so they do have the correct address,” Walker said.

Judge Wolaver re-asked for the ID number, and Walker provided both it and the zip code when being asked again before reiterating the state has the correct information.

“The state did apparently know it at one point, but I guess they have forgotten in the previous months,” Walker said.

Judge Wolaver was able to redirect and continue to clear the air on how the documents can be sent to Walker within the institute to relieve any further confusion regarding the matter, as he advised he would like to have her response to all of those documents.

Concluding the hearing, Walker asked the court about Judicial Release, as her application had not yet been denied. Judge Wolaver advised he had not scheduled that hearing yet, but he will be working out all the motions that day.

To contact Daily Advocate Reporter Meladi Brewer, email [email protected].