[Cite as State v. Acker, 2023-Ohio-1880.]

COURT OF APPEALS

ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.

 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

Hon. Andrew J. King, J.

-vsCase No. 22-COA-022

PAIGE ACKER

 Defendant-Appellant O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Ashland County Court of 

Common Pleas, Case No. 19-CRI-027

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 6, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL, ESQ. BRIAN A. SMITH

Ashland County Prosecuting Attorney Brian A. Smith Law Firm, LLC

123 South Miller Road – Suite #250

NADINE HAUPTMAN, ESQ. Fairlawn, Ohio 44333

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

110 Cottage Street – 3

rd Floor

Ashland, Ohio 44805
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-022 2

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Paige Acker appeals the judgment entered by the 

Ashland County Common Pleas Court revoking her community control and imposing an 

aggregate sentence of thirty months incarceration. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

{¶2} On August 20, 2019, Appellant was placed on community control following 

her convictions of complicity to aggravated trafficking in drugs, complicity to trafficking in 

cocaine, and endangering children. On January 14, 2020, Appellant’s community control 

was revoked because Appellant had contact with Trent Carey, in violation of the terms of 

her community control. The trial court granted Appellant judicial release in November of 

2020, and she was again placed on community control.

{¶3} When she was granted judicial release, Appellant’s supervising officer was 

Paul Cieslinski of the Adult Parole Authority. Officer Cieslinski reviewed the terms of 

supervision with Appellant, which included she not communicate with any prisoner without 

the written permission of her supervising officer.

{¶4} In March of 2021, Officer Cieslinski learned Appellant was continuing to 

have contact with Trent Carey, who was incarcerated. Officer Cieslinski spoke with 

Appellant about these allegations. Appellant admitted she continued to have contact with 

Carey. On March 29, 2021, Officer Cieslinski issued Appellant a written sanction which 

required she not have any contact with Carey, and she not have contact with any inmate 

in a prison or jail facility.

{¶5} In early 2022, while Carey was incarcerated in the Mansfield Correctional 

Institution, prison officials began investigating Carey’s cellmate in conjunction with an 

altercation which occurred in the prison. Christopher Hrytzik, an intelligence analyst for 
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-022 3

a company which provides telephone services to inmates in Ohio, began reviewing calls. 

During the investigation, Hrytzik determined over 150 calls were placed from the prison 

to a particular phone number during the early months of 2022. Using a reverse search 

program, Hrytzik determined the number belonged to Appellant. While reviewing the 

calls, Hrytzik became concerned for the wellbeing of Appellant and contacted Officer 

Daubenspack, who was Appellant’s supervising officer through the Adult Parole Authority 

at the time.

{¶6} After reviewing the phone calls, Daubenspack believed Appellant was 

communicating with Trent Carey while he was incarcerated. On March 25, 2022, 

Daubenspack filed a complaint alleging Appellant violated the terms of her community 

control by having contact with Carey from January, through March, of 2022.

{¶7} The complaint proceeded to an evidentiary hearing in the Ashland County 

Common Pleas Court. Following the hearing, the trial court found Appellant had violated 

the terms of her community control, and imposed the original aggregate sentence of thirty 

months incarceration. It is from the June 23, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant 

prosecutes her appeal, assigning as error:

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING 

APPELLANT IN VIOLATION OF HER COMMUNITY CONTROL 

CONDITIONS AND RE-IMPOSING A PRISON SENTENCE.
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-022 4

{¶8} At the outset, the State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot 

because Appellant has completed her prison sentence. Appellant argues the appeal is 

not moot because there are collateral consequences associated with the finding she 

violated the terms of community control. Appellant specifically argues pursuant to R.C. 

2929.13(B)(1)(a)(ix), because she has now served a prison sentence, she would become 

subject to a prison sentence for a future fourth of fifth degree felony offense which is not 

an offense of violence or a qualifying assault offense.

{¶9} The Ohio Supreme Court has held a person convicted of a felony has a 

substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the completion of the 

sentence, and therefore an appeal challenging a felony conviction is not moot even if the 

entire sentence has been satisfied before the matter is heard on appeal. State v. Golston, 

71 Ohio St.3d 224, 224–25, 643 N.E.2d 109, 110 (1994), syllabus. We find the same 

reasoning applies in the instant case. Appellant is challenging the underlying finding she 

violated her community control, not merely the sentence imposed. If this Court concluded 

the trial court erred in revoking her community control, she would potentially not be subject 

to the collateral consequences which flow from the revocation of her community control,

separate and apart from the prison sentence which she has already served. The State’s 

motion to dismiss is overruled.

I.

{¶10} Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her 

community control. Appellant argues the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate she 

had contact by telephone with Trent Carey. Appellant argues the address associated 

with the phone number called by Carey is not her address. She also argues there are 
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-022 5

alternative explanations for the phone calls, such as another inmate using the account 

because inmates often trade PIN numbers, and Carey discussing the details of the 

custody of their children with Appellant’s sister, who had custody of the children at the 

time the calls were made.

{¶11} A community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial; therefore, the 

State is not required to establish a violation of the terms of community control “beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” State v. Middlebrooks, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2010 AP 08 0026, 

2011-Ohio-4534, ¶ 13. Instead, the State must show “substantial” proof the offender 

violated the terms of his or her community control sanctions. Id. “Substantial evidence” 

is akin to a preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof. Id. at ¶14. Once a trial court 

finds a defendant violated the terms of a community control sanction, the trial court's 

decision to revoke community control may be reversed on appeal only if the court abused 

its discretion. State v. Shuman, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2009CA00271, 2010-Ohio-3957, ¶ 27, 

citing Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio App.3d 26, 38, 601 N.E.2d 61 (1991). An abuse of 

discretion connotes more than an error in law or judgment; it implies the court's attitude 

is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 253, 

473 N.E.2d 768 (1984).

{¶12} In the instant case, Hrytzik testified at the evidentiary hearing while listening 

to phone calls of Carey’s cellmate in conjunction into an investigation into an altercation 

at the prison, he noted a voice which did not sound like Carey’s cellmate. He also noted 

a specific cell phone number was called more than 150 times in the early months of 2022. 

A reverse search revealed the number called from the prison belonged to Appellant. 
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-022 6

Hrytzik testified while reviewing the calls, he heard the inmate refer to the person he called 

as “Paige,” and heard the woman identified as “Paige” refer to the caller as “Trent.” 

{¶13} Officer Daubenspack also reviewed the recorded calls. He was able to 

identify Appellant’s voice on the recordings. Further, he determined the phone calls were 

between Appellant and Carey based on use of names “Trent” and “Paige” to refer to each

during the phone calls, as well as discussion of children and a dog shared by Carey and 

Appellant. We find there was substantial evidence Appellant violated the terms of her 

community control by having contact with Carey while he was incarcerated at the 

Mansfield Correctional Institution. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

revoking Appellant’s community control.

{¶14} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Ashland County 

Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.

Gwin, P.J. and

King, J. concur