[Cite as State v. Smith , 2020-Ohio-3235.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

JESSIE L. SMITH, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2019-09-104

O P I N I O N 6/8/2020

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN CO UNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 19CR35117

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee Jeffrey W. Stueve, 530 North Broadway Street, Lebanon, Ohio 450 36, for appellant

PIPER, J. {¶1} Appellant, Jessie Smith, appeals a decision of the Warren Count y Court of Common Pleas revoking his community control. {¶2} Smith was previously convicted of gross sexual imposition in a different county, and was thus required to notify the Sheriff's Office of a change in his address. Smith left his residence and failed to report the change in address a s required. Smith pled guiltyWarren CA2019-09-104

- 2 - to failure to report his address change and the trial court sen tenced Smith to community

control. {¶3} As a term of community control, the trial court ordered that Sm ith successfully complete a 180-day inpatient treatment program at River City Co rrectional Center. River City, a community-based correct ional facility, offered Smith co gnitive behavioral therapy, substance abuse treatment, as well as sex offender treatment. {¶4} River City reported that Smith was discharged from its program for multiple violations of its rules. Smith was then arrested, and his comm unity control violation was reported to the court. The trial court held a hearing, revoked Smith's community control, and imposed a 30-month sentence. Smith now appeals the revocat ion of his community control, raising the following assignment of error: {¶5} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT

APPELLANT WAS NO LONGER AMENABLE TO COMMUNITY CONTROL. {¶6} Smith argues in his assignment of error that the trial court er red in revoking his community control. {¶7} A trial court's decision revoking community control is reversib le only upon a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Bishop , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2010-08-054, 2011-Ohio-3429, ¶ 11. An abuse of discretion occurs when the t rial court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id. {¶8} "'A trial court does not abuse its discretion by revoking an of fender's community control where the violation in question was one over which the offender had

control.'" State v. Noonan , 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2018-10-203 and CA2018-10-204, 2019-Ohio-2960, ¶ 19 quoting State v. Tranter , 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2000-05-035, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1413, *11 (Mar. 26 2001). Nor does the tr ial court abuse its discretion when the offender is on notice that successful parti cipation in a particular programWarren CA2019-09-104

- 3 - is a requirement of the community control and the offender is u nsuccessfully discharged from the program. State v. Baldwin , 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2015-10-082 and CA2015- 10-086, 2016-Ohio-5476, ¶ 10. The community control privilege rests upon the defendant's compliance with the conditions and any violation of those condi tions may properly be used to revoke the privilege. Noonan at 20. {¶9} After reviewing the record, we find the trial court did not abu se its discretion in revoking Smith's community control. The record is undispute d that successful completion of the River City treatment plan was a term of Smith's communit y control and that he failed to complete the treatment. Smith counters that the trial court should have continued him on community control because he stayed approximately half of th e days it takes to complete the program and his rule violations were due to safety concerns

. 1 However, the record demonstrates that Smith did not complete the treatment plan as ordered because of his own choices and improper behavior. {¶10} During the hearing on Smith's community control violation, Smit h's probation officer testified he discussed with Smith the obligation to suc cessfully complete the program and that Smith was required to abide by River City's rules in o rder to maintain the terms of his community control. Smith's River City case manager testifi ed that on the first day of orientation into the program, residents are provided a handbook with the rules and must pass a test on the rules before they can transition from orient ation to treatment. Thus, Smith was aware of the rules he was required to follow, as well as wh at repercussions were possible. {¶11} Smith's probation officer testified that he received notice fro m River City that Smith was discharged from the program because of multiple viola tions of the rules.

1. Smith testified at the violation hearing that be believed h e was in danger once the other residents learned that he had been convicted of gross sexual imposition involving a six-year-old child.Warren CA2019-09-104

- 4 - According to River City's discharge report, Smith committed fou r Level Four violations, which is the most serious level, one Level Three violation, and one Level Two violation. The Level Four violations included repeated noncompliance with staff instructions, immediate threat of violence for fighting with another resident , spraying chemicals at another resident during housekeeping, and stealing food from th e kitchen to give to other residents. The Level Three incident included Smith using the p hone when he was not privileged to do so. {¶12} In addition to the enumerated violations above, Smith's case ma nager, his clinical supervisor, and the River City executive director repo rted that Smith was unable to adjust to life around other residents, including multiple insta nces of instigating turmoil between himself and others and then refusing to acknowledge his responsibility for the negative interactions. Smith also exhibited attention seeking and demanding behaviors, especially when he would not "get a desired outcome," including acting out until he was removed from shared space with other residents and placed in se gregation. Once in segregation, however, Smith continued to violate the rules, inc luding flooding his area by stopping up the sink and letting the water run. {¶13} Regarding Smith's claims that he was unsafe at River City, the record demonstrates otherwise. When Smith complained of other residen ts and suggested his safety was compromised, River City staff investigated the accus ations and offered various means of addressing Smith's perceived threats to his safety. T hese methods included offering to change Smith's housing location. However, Smith wa s never appeased with the suggestions and River City's attempts to focus on treatment end ed with Smith making new demands on what his requirements were to stay in the program. {¶14} The report also addressed that Smith was uncooperative during t reatment, including shifting discussions away from "criminogenic areas" t o what he did not like aboutWarren CA2019-09-104

- 5 - the program. Smith's case manager testified that Smith would n ot participate in the programs at times, instead only stating that the program was no t working for him. When clinicians attempted to work with Smith to help him with his tr eatment, Smith would only make demands of them, rather than participate in treatment. Th e record clearly demonstrates that Smith failed to complete the required trainin g and therapy sessions, which were a requirement of successful completion of River City 's program. {¶15} After reviewing the record, we find the trial court did not abu se its discretion in revoking Smith's community control. Smith's single assignme nt of error is, therefore,

overruled. {¶16} Judgment affirmed.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.