[Cite as State v. Harris, 2024-Ohio-1865.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 vs.

MARQUEZ HARRIS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-230463

TRIAL NO. B-2105597

 O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 15, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Bryan R. Perkins, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

CROUSE, Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Marquez Harris pled guilty to burglary and was 

sentenced to two years of community control. After his second community-control 

violation, the court required Harris to complete programming at the River City 

Correctional Center (“RCCC”) as part of his continued community-control sanction.

{¶2} While at RCCC, Harris was taken to the hospital after he suffered a 

seizure. Following his visit to the hospital, Harris was discharged unsuccessfully from 

RCCC and charged with a third community-control violation. Following a no-contest 

plea, Harris’s community control was revoked, and he was sentenced to three years in 

prison. Harris now appeals the trial court’s guilty finding on his community-control 

violation and the subsequent sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial 

court’s guilty finding, but we reverse the court’s sentence of incarceration.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶3} Harris pled guilty to burglary as a third-degree felony in December 

2021. He was sentenced to two years of community control. Harris pled guilty to a 

community-control violation in August 2022, and his community control was 

continued. Harris pled guilty to a second community-control violation in March 2023, 

and he was reinstated to community control with the added condition that he complete 

the residential program at RCCC.

{¶4} In August 2023, Harris was sent to the hospital after he suffered a 

seizure at RCCC. In advance of his hospital discharge, Harris contacted RCCC staff to 

arrange for pickup. Harris was informed that upon return to RCCC, he would be placed 

in the “honor dorm” so that medical staff could monitor his health. Harris stated 

during the phone call that he would not comply. After Harris’s irate behavior escalated, 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

Harris indicated his intent to sign out of the program upon his return to RCCC. 

Following his request, Harris was discharged from the RCCC program unsuccessfully.

{¶5} As a result of his discharge from RCCC, Harris was charged with a third 

community-control violation. Harris pled no contest, and the trial court found him 

guilty of the community-control violation. Harris’s community control was 

terminated, and he was sentenced to three years in the Department of Rehabilitation 

and Correction. This appeal timely followed.

II. Analysis

{¶6} In his first assignment of error, Harris argues that the trial court erred 

in finding him guilty of the community-control violation because the act constituting 

the violation—his discharge from RCCC—was involuntary because it was the result of 

his medical condition.

{¶7} A sentencing court is empowered with the discretion to revoke an 

offender’s community control after a community-control violation has occurred. State 

v. Stewart, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220300, 2023-Ohio-542, ¶ 5. We review the 

court’s decision to revoke community control for an abuse of discretion. Id.

Accordingly, we will not reverse the trial court’s decision “unless the court has 

exercised its discretionary judgment over the matter in an unwarranted way or 

committed legal error.” Id.

{¶8} Harris pled no-contest to the community-control violation. The court 

stated that it had reviewed the probation report, and then concluded that Harris was 

guilty of the community-control violation. The probation report clearly reflects that 

Harris was discharged from the RCCC program based on his irate behavior and stated 

request to leave the program, rather than for medical reasons or because of his hospital 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

visit. As a result, the court’s finding of guilt was not unwarranted or unreasonable. We 

therefore overrule Harris’s first assignment of error.

{¶9} In his second assignment of error, Harris argues that the trial court 

erred in imposing a prison term for his community-control violation because the trial 

court did not strictly comply with the statutory notification requirements under R.C. 

2929.19(B)(4).

{¶10} R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) provides, in relevant part, that:

If the sentencing court determines at the sentencing hearing that a 

community control sanction should be imposed and the court is not 

prohibited from imposing a community control sanction, the court shall 

impose a community control sanction. The court shall notify the 

offender that, if the conditions of the sanction are violated, * * * the 

court may impose a longer time under the same sanction, may impose a 

more restrictive sanction, or may impose a prison term on the offender 

and shall indicate the range from which the prison term may be imposed 

as a sanction for the violation * * *.

{¶11} At Harris’s initial sentencing, the court advised him:

If you violate this community control sanction or violate the law or leave 

the state without permission of this Court or your probation officer, I 

may impose a longer term under the same sanction, or, in fact, you’ve 

got a potential prison sentence of three years over your head here so you 

don’t want to go to prison for three years.

{¶12} After Harris’s first community-control violation, the court again advised 

Harris:
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

I am gonna warn you now, if you violate this you’ve got three years in 

prison sitting out there, and you don’t want to go to prison for this.

{¶13} At the hearing on Harris’s second community-control violation, the 

court once again advised:

Mr. Harris, the fact that you’re on parole is concerning to the Court. You 

understand you’ve got a potential three-year prison sentence out there? 

I’m going to give you one chance at River City. I’m going to continue you 

on probation. I’m going to order you attend and complete the River City 

program.

{¶14} Harris argues that the trial court’s warnings following each of the 

community-control violations were defective because the court did not provide the 

warnings required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(4).

{¶15} At a community-control-violation hearing, “the court sentences the 

offender anew and must comply with the relevant sentencing statutes.” State v. Fraley, 

105 Ohio St.3d 13, 2004-Ohio-7110, 821 N.E.2d 995, ¶ 17. When sentencing an 

offender to community control, the court is required to inform the offender in 

“ ‘straightforward and affirmative language’ * * * of both the actions that would trigger 

a consequence and the nature of the possible consequences.” State v. Thompson, 1st 

Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-220374, C-220375, and C-220376, 2023-Ohio-3722, ¶ 11, 

quoting State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, 814 N.E.2d 837, ¶ 19. 

The warning must “explain the actions of the defendant that trigger a consequence. 

These include violating the conditions of community control, committing a violation 

of any law, or leaving the state without the permission of the court or a probation 

officer.” Id. at ¶ 8. The court must also warn the offender as to the range of potential 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

sentences that it may impose following a violation. State v. Grimm, 7th Dist. Belmont 

No. 23 BE 0005, 2023-Ohio-4458, ¶ 17. “Where courts fail to provide the notice 

required by R.C. 2929.14(B)(4), courts may not later impose a prison term as a 

consequence for a community control violation.” Thompson at ¶ 10, citing State v. 

Ward, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190656, 2021-Ohio-1320, ¶ 7; State v. Olverson, 1st 

Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-170018 and C-170019, 2017-Ohio-9188, ¶ 15.

{¶16} The trial court properly warned Harris of what would constitute a 

community-control violation and the potential sanctions at his initial sentencing. 

However, following each violation, the court sentenced Harris “anew.” See Fraley at 

¶ 17. Although the trial court explained at each hearing that Harris faced a potential 

three-year sentence for violation of his community control, the court did not explain 

at each hearing in “straightforward and affirmative language” what actions would 

“trigger a consequence.” See Thompson at ¶ 11. As a result, the trial court failed to 

comply strictly with the requirements of R.C. 2929.19(B)(4). We therefore sustain 

Harris’s second assignment of error. 

III. Conclusion

{¶17} We affirm the trial court’s judgment finding Harris guilty of the 

community-control violation. However, we reverse the trial court’s judgment 

sentencing Harris to incarceration. We remand the cause to the trial court to 

resentence Harris for the August 2023 community-control violation. Pursuant to our 

holdings in Ward and Olverson, the trial court may not impose a prison sentence on 

remand.

Judgment accordingly.

BERGERON, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

7

Please note:

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.