[Cite as State v. Ryan, 2021-Ohio-4059.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 - v - 

NICHOLAS P. RYAN, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

CASE NO. 2021-L-032

Criminal Appeal from the 

Court of Common Pleas 

Trial Court No. 2019 CR 000677 

O P I N I O N 

Decided: November 15, 2021 

Judgment: Affirmed 

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Jennifer A. McGee, Assistant 

Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, 

Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Jay F. Crook, Jay F. Crook, Attorney at Law, LLC, 30601 Euclid Avenue, Wickliffe, OH 

44092 (For Defendant-Appellant). 

MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant, Nicholas P. Ryan (“Mr. Ryan”), appeals from the judgment of the 

Lake County Court of Common Pleas, which revoked his community control and imposed 

a term of imprisonment after he was found guilty of violating his community control 

sanctions. More specifically, Mr. Ryan agreed to abide by the rules of probation set forth 

by the Adult Probation Department and to follow the trial court’s additional sanctions and 

conditions. 
2 

Case No. 2021-L-032

{¶2} Conditions and sanctions pertinent to this appeal were (1) to follow local, 

state, or federal laws; (2) to not have under his control any controlled substance not 

prescribed by a licensed physician; (3) to have “no involvement with drugs or alcohol, 

including marihuana”; and (4) to “have one (1) prescribing physician * * * and one (1) 

pharmacy, and * * * to inform the Lake County Probation Department of any change in 

providers * * *.” Mr. Ryan subsequently used his medical marijuana card to purchase 

marijuana on five occasions between October 23, 2020, and November 6, 2020. 

{¶3} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Ryan contends the trial court erred in 

issuing “probation restrictions” that are in violation of the provisions of the Ohio medical 

marijuana control program (“the OMMCP”), R.C. Chapter 3796. 

{¶4} After a review of the record and pertinent caselaw, we find Mr. Ryan’s 

assignment of error to be without merit. Mr. Ryan acknowledged and agreed to the 

community control sanctions and probation rules at the time of sentencing. Despite the 

unambiguous terms of the sanctions and conditions, the state established that Mr. Ryan 

used his medical marijuana card five times at a local dispensary, which was not his listed 

pharmacy, without notifying his probation officer. Moreover, Mr. Ryan never submitted a 

valid medical marijuana card into evidence at the revocation hearing or even attempted 

to argue medical marijuana was, for him, a medical necessity. Indeed, whether Mr. Ryan 

used the marijuana was not at issue since whether purchased from a dispensary or on 

the street, his urine screens demonstrated he was not using marijuana. In fact, Mr. Ryan, 

a convicted drug trafficker, admitted he was “stockpiling” it. 

{¶5} There is no doubt that Mr. Ryan violated the terms of his community control 

sanctions inasmuch as marijuana in any form remains illegal under federal law; he had a 
3 

Case No. 2021-L-032

controlled substance without a valid prescription under his control; and he was using both 

a dispensary and a pharmacy without advising his probation officer, all in violation of the 

Lake County Court of Common Pleas/Adult Probation Department Rules. 

{¶6} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Substantive and Procedural History 

{¶7} In the underlying case, Mr. Ryan pleaded guilty by way of information to (1) 

trafficking in L.S.D., a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), with two 

forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417 and R.C. 2981.04 for contraband and 

a large sum of cash ($1,514); and (2) aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree 

felony, in violation of R.C. 2924.11, with two forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 

2941.1417 and R.C. 2981.04 for contraband and cash. 

{¶8} The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) noted that Mr. Ryan was 

issued a medical marijuana card on March 19, 2019, upon a recommendation from Dr. 

Alan Wine for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). He was also 

seeing Mikaela Pope, a psychiatrist for medication management, once every three 

months. Test results of a urine sample submitted at the time of the presentence interview 

on November 5, 2019, were positive for marijuana. The PSI further stated that “[i]t should 

be noted that the defendants [sic] bond was not revoked per Judge Vincent A Culotta. An 

Ohio Automated RX Reporting System (“OARRS”) report generated on November 21, 

2019 provided negative results.” 

{¶9} The trial court sentenced Mr. Ryan to two years of community control 

sanctions on each count to be served concurrent to each other. Included in his community 

control sanctions were a prohibition against alcohol use and the possession, use, or 
4 

Case No. 2021-L-032

control over any controlled substance, including marijuana; a requirement to attend 

Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous; and the requirement to inform the Adult Probation 

Department of any changes in prescribing providers and/or pharmacies. The court noted 

that a violation of his sentence would result in a more restrictive sanction, a longer 

sanction, or a prison term of 18 months on count one and 12 months on count two, for a 

total prison term of 30 months. 

{¶10} Several months later, the state filed a motion to terminate community control 

sanctions with a letter from the Adult Probation Department indicating Mr. Ryan’s 

community control should be revoked because he was cited for failing to reinstate/expired 

plates, abusing harmful intoxicants, and possession of drug paraphernalia. 

{¶11} The trial court found Mr. Ryan guilty of failure to reinstate/expired plates and 

abusing harmful intoxicants. The court further found Mr. Ryan not guilty of possession of 

drug paraphernalia because the charge had been dismissed. 

{¶12} The trial court continued Mr. Ryan’s community control for a total of two 

years and imposed further sanctions and conditions, which included 90 days in jail, with 

25 days served; participation in the North East Ohio Community Alternative Program 

(“N.E.O.C.A.P.”); abstaining from drugs and alcohol; submitting to periodic screens; 

attending three Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous meetings per week; taking all prescribed 

medications and only as prescribed; and requiring Mr. Ryan to have “only one (1) 

prescribing physician, one (1) dentist, and one (1) pharmacy. The Defendant shall sign 

all necessary medical releases and is to inform the Lake County Adult Probation 

Department of any change in providers. The Defendant is to advise all providers of any 

addiction.” 
5 

Case No. 2021-L-032

{¶13} Based on the recommendations of the Lake County Adult Probation

Department and N.E.O.C.A.P., the trial court later vacated the condition of Mr. Ryan’s 

community control sanctions requiring him to serve 30 days in the Lake County jail and 

participate in the Transitional Reporting Program. 

{¶14} Several months later, the state filed a second motion to terminate 

community control with an attached letter from the Adult Probation Department, which 

alleged five violations of Rule No. 8 of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas/Adult 

Probation Department Rules because Mr. Ryan used his medical marijuana card five 

times at The Botanist, a dispensary in Wickliffe, Ohio, on October 23, 2020, October 27, 

2020, October 29, 2020, October 30, 2020, and November 6, 2020. The state later filed 

a supplement also alleging five violations of Rule No. 1. 

{¶15} Rule No. 8 states: “You shall not use, possess, or have under your control 

any controlled substance not prescribed to you by a licensed physician. Use of alcohol 

is prohibited.” Rule No. 1 states: “You shall obey all local, state, and federal laws. (You 

will be arrested for violating any local, state, or federal laws.)” 

{¶16} Mr. Ryan’s probation officer, Nicole Randazzo (“Ms. Randazzo”), testified 

at the probation violation hearing that she discovered the alleged violations upon receipt 

of Mr. Ryan’s OARRS (Ohio Automatic Rx Reporting System) report, which was admitted 

into evidence. The dispensary reported the purchases on the OARRS report, noting the 

quantity of marijuana and the number of days allotted, i.e., Mr. Ryan purchased the 

marijuana in quantities that were for two- and three-day periods. 

{¶17} During his office visit with Ms. Randazzo, Mr. Ryan admitted to filling 

“prescriptions” for medical marijuana at The Botanist. He also told her he had disposed 
6 

Case No. 2021-L-032

of the drugs after getting into an argument with his girlfriend. Ms. Randazzo further 

testified that she “had a question for him as to how he was filling prescriptions for medical 

marijuana and testing * * * negative. So my questions were: ‘Were you using the 

marijuana or were you selling marijuana?’” Mr. Ryan told her he was neither using nor 

selling, rather, he was “stockpiling” the medical marijuana. 

{¶18} On cross-examination, Ms. Randazzo testified she requested that the 

prosecutors file a probation violation for Rule No. 8 of the Adult Probation Department’s 

rules. She further stated that Mr. Ryan did not test positive for marijuana during that time 

frame, nor did he purchase more than the prescribed amount in violation of medical 

marijuana card regulations. Ms. Randazzo was aware that Mr. Ryan suffered from 

anxiety and panic attacks related to incidents with his treatment counselor from Lake 

Geauga Center, where the counselor solicited drugs from him while he was in drug 

counseling. She agreed that Mr. Ryan was compliant with all the other conditions of his 

community control. 

{¶19} The court inquired if Mr. Ryan was supposed to “have one doctor, one 

dentist, and one pharmacy?” Ms. Randazzo explained that Mr. Ryan was required to 

inform his probation officer of all pharmacies and doctors. Mr. Ryan had a prescription 

for other medication, which he filled at Rite-Aid, but he never advised her that he used or 

was planning to use his medical marijuana card at The Botanist. 

{¶20} The trial court found that Mr. Ryan violated the terms and conditions of his 

community control sanctions by violating Rule No. 1 and Rule No. 8 when he used his 

medical marijuana card at The Botanist on five occasions. The court also found he was 

not amenable to community control and imposed concurrent prison terms of 17 months 
7 

Case No. 2021-L-032

on count one, trafficking in L.S.D., and 11 months on count two, aggravated possession 

of drugs. 

{¶21} Mr. Ryan raises one assignment of error on appeal: 

{¶22} “The trial court erred in issuing probation restrictions that were in violation 

of the provisions of the Ohio Medical Marijana [sic] laws.” 

Sentencing Standard of Review 

{¶23} “‘A community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, so the state 

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

reasonable doubt.”’” State v. Motz, 2020-Ohio-4356, 158 N.E.3d 641, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.), 

quoting State v. Kincer, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2005-07-059, 2006-Ohio-2249, ¶ 5. 

Rather, the state need only present substantial evidence of a violation of the defendant’s 

community control. Id.; State v. Pickett, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-09-115, 2015-

Ohio-972, ¶ 13.

{¶24} Further, we review a trial court’s finding of a community control violation 

under an abuse of discretion standard, and a “trial court’s decision to revoke community 

control even for a ‘minor’ violation, is not an abuse of discretion.” (Citations omitted.) 

State v. Bika, 11th District Portage Nos. 2018-P-0096 & 2018-P-0097, 2019-Ohio-3841, 

¶ 28. An abuse of discretion is a term of art, “connoting judgment exercised by a court, 

which does not comport with reason or the record.” Id., quoting State v. Underwood, 11th 

Dist. Lake No. 2008-L-113, 2009-Ohio-2089, ¶ 30, citing State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 

667, 676-78 (1925). Stated differently, an abuse of discretion is the trial court’s “‘failure 

to exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” Id. at ¶ 28, quoting State v. 
8 

Case No. 2021-L-032

Beechler, 2d Dist. Clark No. 09-CA-54, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 62, quoting Black’s Law 

Dictionary 11 (8th Ed.Rev.2004). 

{¶25} “‘A trial court does not abuse its discretion by revoking an offender’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 & CA2018-10-204, 

2019-Ohio-2960, ¶ 19, quoting State v. Tranter, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2000-05-035, 

2001 WL 290192, *3 (Mar. 26, 2001). A trial court also does not abuse its discretion in 

revoking community control “‘when the offender is on notice that successful participation 

in a particular program is a requirement of the community control and the offender is 

unsuccessfully discharged from the program.’” Motz at ¶ 28, quoting State v. Smith, 12th 

Dist. Warren No. CA2019-09-104, 2020-Ohio-3235, ¶ 8. The privilege of community 

control rests upon a defendant’s compliance with the conditions of community control and 

any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege. Id.

{¶26} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Ryan contends the trial court erred in 

issuing probation violations that were in contravention of the OMMCP. 

The OMMCP 

{¶27} The OMMCP is contained in R.C. Chapter 3796 and defines “medical 

marijuana” as “marijuana that is cultivated, processed, dispensed, tested, possessed, or 

used for a medical purpose.” R.C. 3796.01(A)(2). 

{¶28} At the outset and despite some argument to the contrary, we must clarify 

that marijuana continues to be illegal under federal law. See 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 

844. Thus, it remains illegal for physicians to prescribe the controlled substance. A 

medical marijuana card, referred to as a “registry identification card” pursuant to Ohio 
9 

Case No. 2021-L-032

Adm.Code 3796:7-1-01(E), is not a prescription, but rather, is issued based on a 

physician’s “recommendation” for its use. See R.C. 4731.30; Adm.Code 4731-32-02. 

Further, a dispensary is not a pharmacy. A “‘dispensary’, as used in Chapter 3796. of the 

Revised Code, means an entity licensed pursuant to sections 3796.04 and 3796.10 of the 

Revised Code and any rules promulgated thereunder to sell medical marijuana to 

qualifying patients and caregivers.” Ohio Adm.Code 3796:1-1-01(A)(13). 

Community Control Sanctions 

{¶29} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.15(A)(1), “[t]he court may impose any other 

conditions of release under a community control sanction that the court considers 

appropriate, including, but not limited to, requiring that the offender not ingest or be 

injected with a drug of abuse and submit to random drug testing as provided in division 

(D) of this section to determine whether the offender ingested or was injected with a drug 

of abuse and requiring that the results of the drug test indicate that the offender did not 

ingest or was not injected with a drug of abuse.”1 

{¶30} Thus, R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) vests the trial court with the discretion to impose 

any condition of community control conditions or requirements it deems appropriate. 

Courts have broad discretion when imposing conditions. State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 

177, 2004-Ohio-4888, 814 N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 10. The relevant inquiry to determine whether 

a court abused this discretion in imposing a condition is three-fold: (1) is the condition 

reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender, (2) does it have some relationship to the 

crime of which the offender was convicted, and (3) does it relate to conduct that is criminal 

1. No sentencing transcript has been submitted on appeal; thus, we presume the regularity of the 

sentencing proceedings below. State v. Hundzsa, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2008-P-0012, 2008-Ohio-4985, 

¶ 19. 
10 

Case No. 2021-L-032

or reasonably related to future criminality and serves the ends of probation. Id. at ¶ 12; 

State v. Dahlberg, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2020-A-0030, 2021-Ohio-550, ¶ 81. 

{¶31} This is not the first case we have considered whether prohibiting medical 

marijuana is within the trial court’s discretion. Indeed, in Dahlberg, after applying the 

Supreme Court of Ohio’s test in Talty, we found that the trial court “was well within its 

discretion to impose any variety of community control conditions,” including a condition 

prohibiting “‘[m]arijuana, even if legalized.’” Id. at ¶ 82-83. We also found a clear 

relationship with the various criminal offenses being committed, i.e., drug use and illegal 

firearms in a motor vehicle. Id. at ¶ 83. Lastly, it was “necessary for the court to take into

consideration known drug use in fashioning a sentence that would ‘rehabilitate the 

offender’ and prevent future crime.” Id.

{¶32} There is no doubt that the community control rules prohibiting violations of 

local, state, and federal laws and taking or having under his control controlled substances 

only when prescribed by a physician were well within the trial court’s discretion to impose, 

especially under the facts of this case where Mr. Ryan has a history of polysubstance 

drug abuse, and drug trafficking. Moreover, they were restrictions Mr. Ryan 

acknowledged and agreed to despite his possession of an active medical marijuana card 

at the time of his sentencing. 

{¶33} The PSI noted that during his presentence interview, Mr. Ryan disclosed 

the fact that he had an active medical marijuana card at the time of sentencing. The PSI 

also stated that Mr. Ryan has chemical dependency issues, a history of marijuana 

possession and trafficking, and has been diagnosed with “Cannabis Use Unspecified.” 

Mr. Ryan signed a copy of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas/Department of Adult 
11 

Case No. 2021-L-032

Probation rules, acknowledging and certifying that he fully understood them. For him to 

now argue that the trial court’s imposition of these prohibitions is error because they 

conflict with the OMMCP and that the trial court may not find a violation based on the 

clear terms of his community control sanctions because he was not using the marijuana, 

only “stockpiling” it, triggers the obvious question - was Mr. Ryan stockpiling it for his own 

use at a later time or for sale? Either reason would be a violation of the terms of his 

community control, just as having the marijuana under his control and purchasing it 

without advising his probation officer were violations. Nor can he argue that using his 

medical marijuana card was a “mistake.” 

{¶34} Applying the Talty factors, it is clear that prohibiting Mr. Ryan from using 

marijuana or having it under his control is reasonably related to rehabilitation, the crimes 

he committed, and serves the ends of probation, i.e., Mr. Ryan pleaded guilty to trafficking 

in drugs and aggravated possession of drugs. 

{¶35} In this developing area of the law, several courts have addressed the 

prohibition of medical marijuana as a community control sanction in various procedural 

stages. For instance, in State v. Owens, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-20-08, 2021-Ohio-259, 

the Third District rejected the appellant’s argument that the trial court erred by restricting 

her from using a valid prescription for medical marijuana as part of the terms and 

conditions of community control during sentencing. Id. at ¶ 11, ¶ 18. The court found 

that despite a mention of a card and a prescription, these items were never introduced 

into evidence, “so we have no way of knowing if they truly existed, if they were valid, for 

how long they were valid, or if they expired at a certain point * * *.” Id. at ¶ 16. 

Furthermore, the claim was not actually ripe for appeal since the appellant was not found 
12 

Case No. 2021-L-032

in violation of community control for use of a legitimate, “valid prescription” for medical 

marijuana. Id. at ¶ 17. 

{¶36} Likewise, in State v. Donoho, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2018-G-0151, 2018-

Ohio-4950, this court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing 

to modify community control to permit the appellant to use Marinol, a man-made form of 

cannabis, which is a Schedule III controlled substance that requires a valid prescription 

from a licensed health professional. Id. at ¶ 12, ¶ 14. The lead opinion found it was 

premature to address the issue at the time of the appeal because the appellant did not 

test positive and was not charged with a violation. Id. at ¶ 19. 

{¶37} In State v. Hobden, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 19AP0056, 2020-Ohio-2877, the 

appellant informed the trial court during sentencing that he had a medical marijuana card 

issued by a physician. Id. at ¶ 3. The trial court stated that since it could not differentiate 

between medical marijuana and recreational uses of marijuana during the appellant’s 

potential 30-day house arrest, it would require him to stop using it entirely. Id. After the 

appellant objected and filed a motion for reconsideration of its decision to prohibit medical 

marijuana during house arrest, the trial court indicated it would provide him with a report 

date to begin serving a 30-day jail sentence in the county jail. Id. at ¶ 4. The Ninth District 

overruled the appellant’s assignment of error and determined that “[g]iven the trial court’s 

broad discretion in shaping community-control sanctions, this Court cannot say that the 

trial court’s refusal to allow Mr. Hobden to serve his 30-day jail sentence on house arrest 

under these facts was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Id. at ¶ 9. 

{¶38} In State v. Wertman, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 18 COA 026, 2019-Ohio-7, 

defense counsel presented mitigating evidence at the sanctions hearing that the 
13 

Case No. 2021-L-032

appellant’s possession of marijuana was for medical purposes. When the trial court 

challenged why the appellant did not present this as an affirmative defense, defense 

counsel conceded that medical marijuana was still technically a violation of community 

control since the appellant did not properly notify his probation officer about the 

“prescription” in an appropriately timely manner. Id. at ¶ 13. The Fifth District overruled 

the appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding that the appellant admitted 

and pleaded guilty to the alleged community control violations. Id. at ¶ 35. The sanctions 

imposed “resulted from his guilty plea, not the statements made by his counsel 

concerning notification.” Id. Most fundamentally, just as in this case, the appellant 

provided no evidence in support of such proper notification. Id. 

{¶39} The Eighth District recently addressed whether a trial court may revoke 

judicial release based on medical marijuana use in State v. Sanchez, 2021-Ohio-1593, 

170 N.E.3d 958, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.). During the revocation hearing, the appellant’s probation 

officer informed the court that she sent the appellant’s status report to the trial court 

because the appellant had provided a medical marijuana card for seizures and that “some 

judges have allowed medical marijuana use during community control supervision.” Id. 

at ¶ 9. The trial court responded negatively and asked about the probation department’s 

standard terms regarding drug use. Id. The probation officer clarified that it had a “no 

tolerance” policy and that “there should be no substance use whatsoever.” Id. The 

appellant admitted to violating the sanction. Id. at ¶ 18. Although the appellant discussed 

his medical marijuana card, physician’s letter, and medical conditions, he did not argue 

that medical marijuana was or should have been permissible under the conditions of his 

community control or that he lacked notice that medical marijuana use would be a 
14 

Case No. 2021-L-032

violation. Id. at ¶ 19. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in finding 

substantial proof that appellant had violated the conditions of his community control. Id.

at ¶ 20. 

{¶40} Likewise, in this case, Mr. Ryan admitted to violating his community control 

sanctions. He failed to submit any evidence at the revocation hearing, including his 

medical marijuana card or evidence that the use of marijuana was a medical necessity. 

Further, he had notice and agreed to the trial court’s terms that possession of or using, 

which includes procuring, a controlled substance would be a violation of his community 

control. 

{¶41} While we are cognizant of the competing issues surrounding crafting 

meaningful community control sanctions for defendants suffering with substance abuse 

or other underlying medical conditions and the OMMCP, this is not the case where the 

intersection of law and medicine has been presented and can be addressed. Further, our 

determination in this case does not preclude a defendant from raising the use of medical 

marijuana pursuant to the use of a valid medical marijuana card as an affirmative defense 

under the proper circumstances. 

{¶42} As the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia 

succinctly stated, albeit under different state laws, “the question before the Court is not 

whether possession of marijuana is a crime for which one can be federally prosecuted in 

Virginia, but whether Defendant violated the conditions of his supervised release. One of 

the conditions of Defendant’s supervised release was that he ‘refrain from any unlawful 

use of a controlled substance.’ * * * Under federal law, marijuana is a controlled 

substance and Defendant was found to have possessed marijuana on at least five 
15 

Case No. 2021-L-032

occasions. Another condition of Defendant’s supervised release was that he ‘not commit 

another federal, state, or local crime.’ * * * In Virginia, possession of marijuana is both a 

federal and a state crime. Defendant did not contest his use of marijuana. Consequently, 

the Court found that Defendant had violated the conditions of his supervised release and 

reluctantly imposed sentence.” United States v. Guess, 216 F.Supp.3d 689, 697-698 

(E.D.Va.2016). 

{¶43} Finding Mr. Ryan’s sole assignment of error to be without merit, the 

judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., 

JOHN J. EKLUND, J., 

concur.