[Cite as State v. Sanchez, 2021-Ohio-1585.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 109673 

 v. : 

 

JUAN A. SANCHEZ, : 

 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 6, 2021 

 

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-18-625480-A 

 

Appearances: 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Theodore Parran, III, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and 

Erika B. Cunliffe, Assistant Public Defender, for 

appellant. 

MARY J. BOYLE, A.J.: 

Defendant-appellant, Juan Sanchez, appeals from the trial court’s 

judgment finding that he violated the conditions of his judicial release and 
reimposing the remainder of his prison sentence. He raises one assignment of error 

for our review: 

The trial court violated Mr. Sanchez’s state and federal constitutional 

rights to due process when it revoked his judicial release based on his 

having violated a condition of which Sanchez had not been properly 

notified. 

We find that we cannot reach the merits of Sanchez’s due process 

argument because he admitted to the violation, and thus, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment. 

I. Procedural History and Factual Background 

The charges in this case stem from January 2018 when police stopped 

Sanchez for littering out of his vehicle window and found a loaded handgun, “a few 

grams” of cocaine, marijuana, and a scale in his coat. At the time, Sanchez was on 

community control supervision for drug possession in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-14-

587643 from 2014, and he had already violated the terms of his community control 

sanctions three times. 

In February 2018, Sanchez was indicted in the case underlying this 

appeal, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-18-625480, for three counts: Count 1, carrying a 

concealed weapon in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2), a fourth-degree felony, with a 

forfeiture specification; Count 2, drug possession in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a 

fifth-degree felony, with a one-year firearm specification; and Count 3, having a 

weapon while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), a third-degree 

felony, with a forfeiture specification. 
In March 2018, Sanchez agreed to enter a negotiated plea. At the plea 

hearing, the state offered to nolle Count 1, carrying a concealed weapon, and the 

firearm specification on Count 2, drug possession. In exchange, Sanchez would 

plead guilty to amended Count 2, drug possession with no specification, and Count 

3, having a weapon while under disability, with the forfeiture specification. Sanchez 

accepted the offer, and the trial court found that he entered his guilty plea 

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily with a full understanding of the rights he 

was waiving. The trial court referred him for a presentence investigation report. 

At the sentencing hearing in April 2018, the trial court outlined 

Sanchez’s extensive criminal history, including, among other offenses, drug 

possession, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, disorderly conduct, drug 

possession specifically in CR-14-587643, and the three community control 

violations in that case. The trial court sentenced Sanchez to 30 months in prison: 12 

months for Count 2, drug possession, to run concurrently with 30 months for Count 

3, having a weapon while under disability. The trial court imposed court costs, told 

Sanchez that “it is my sincere hope that you are put under supervision by the parole 

board when you get out for postrelease control,” and explained to Sanchez the 

consequences if he were to violate the requirements of postrelease control. The 

sentencing judgment entry states that “post release control is part of this prison 

sentence for up to 3 years discretionary” and that Sanchez would forfeit the gun to 

the state. In the same hearing, the trial court also found Sanchez to be in violation 
of his community control sanctions in CR-14-587643 and terminated the 

community control sanctions in that case. 

In May 2019, Sanchez filed a motion for judicial release pursuant to 

R.C. 2929.20. In June 2019, the trial court granted Sanchez’s motion and placed 

him on community control sanctions for 12 months. At the judicial release hearing, 

the trial court advised Sanchez of the following conditions of community control: 

“You will be subject to regular alcohol and drug testing. You will be forbidden from 

using any alcohol or illicit drugs. You’ll be ordered to maintain employment or fulltime schooling.” The judgment entry states: “12 months community control 

sanctions. Regular testing, no alcohol or drugs. Maintain employment or full-time 

schooling.” 

In February 2020, Sanchez’s probation officer sent a status report to 

the trial court to alert the court that Sanchez had tested positive for marijuana. In 

response to the status report, on March 6, 2020, the trial court assigned Sanchez 

counsel and set a “community control sanctions violation hearing” for March 20, 

2020. However, two docket entries on March 9, 2020, reflect that the March 20 

hearing “was set in error,” Sanchez retained the same counsel who represented him 

earlier in the case, and the trial court held a “hearing on alleged probation violation” 

on March 9, 2020. 

At the hearing, Sanchez’s probation officer told the court that she sent 

the status report because Sanchez provided a medical marijuana card for seizures, 

and she explained that some judges have allowed medical marijuana use during 
community control supervision. The trial court responded, “not in this room,” and 

expressed his disdain for the medical marijuana industry. The trial court asked 

about the probation department’s standard terms regarding drug use, and the 

probation officer clarified that the probation department has a “no tolerance” policy 

and that “there should be no substance use whatsoever.” 

The trial court asked Sanchez’s counsel what he would like to say on 

Sanchez’s behalf, and defense counsel responded, “Well, Judge, he did it.” Sanchez’s 

counsel offered the court a copy of the medical marijuana card and a statement from 

Sanchez’s doctor “saying it’s okay.” He explained that he told Sanchez, “when the 

judge says no alcohol, no drugs, that’s exactly what this judge, this court means. He 

understands that now.” Defense counsel said that Sanchez is “willing to accept 

whatever punishment this court deems appropriate.” 

Sanchez told the court that his decision to use medical marijuana was 

“incompetent.” He explained that he thought “it was going to be okay” because he 

had a medical marijuana card and a letter from his physician, but he “wasn’t really 

thinking things through,” and he did not follow “the absolute underlying word” that 

the trial court told him. He said he “made a mistake.” 

The trial court asked Sanchez about his seizures, and Sanchez 

explained that he has had seizures in his sleep since he was four years old. He told 

the court that the seizures are “dormant” and that he has not had one since 2013, 

although he gets headaches and migraines. He explained that his doctor said that 

certain things like lights and headaches could retrigger his dormant seizures. 
Sanchez also said that he was diagnosed with epilepsy when he was four years old 

and that he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) in 2015. 

He told the court that he was prescribed Ativan for his PTSD, but his probation 

officer told him it was prohibited, so he had stopped taking it. Sanchez could not 

remember the name of the physician who treated his epilepsy or the name of the 

medication that the physician had prescribed, but he knew that he had stopped 

taking it. Sanchez clarified that the medical marijuana was to treat his epilepsy and 

PTSD, but he explained that he could see a psychiatrist for his PTSD and that he 

could manage his epilepsy with melatonin. 

The trial court again went through Sanchez’s extensive criminal 

history, his drug offenses, and his community control violations in CR-14-587643. 

The trial court told Sanchez that it did not believe that he sought a medical 

marijuana card to treat his epilepsy. The trial court found that Sanchez had violated 

the terms of his community control sanctions and ordered that he serve the 

remainder of his 30-month prison sentence. 

It is from this judgment that Sanchez timely appealed. He filed in the 

trial court and in this court a motion for bond and to suspend his sentence pending 

appeal, and both courts denied his motion. 

II. Law and Analysis 

In his sole assignment of error, Sanchez argues that the trial court 

violated his due process rights when it revoked his judicial release and reimposed 
his prison sentence. He contends that the trial court failed to properly notify him 

that he could not use medical marijuana. 

Pursuant to R.C. 2929.20(K), if a trial court grants judicial release to 

an eligible offender, the court “shall place the eligible offender under an appropriate 

community control sanction, under appropriate conditions, and under the 

supervision of the department of probation serving the court and shall reserve the 

right to reimpose the sentence that it reduced if the offender violates the sanction.” 

Further, “[a] judicial release revocation hearing is not a criminal trial and does not 

result in a conviction.” State v. Westrick, 196 Ohio App.3d 141, 2011-Ohio-1169, 962 

N.E.2d 818, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.). Therefore, the state is not required to prove a judicial 

release violation “beyond a reasonable doubt”; instead, the state must show 

“substantial proof that the offender violated the terms of his or her judicial release.” 

Id. at ¶ 21. “A trial court’s decision finding a violation of judicial release will not be 

disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” Id. at ¶ 22, citing State v. 

Alexander, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-07-45, 2008-Ohio-1485, ¶ 8. An abuse of 

discretion connotes that the trial court’s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

unconscionable. Ruwe v. Bd. of Twp. Trustees, 29 Ohio St.3d 59, 61, 505 N.E.2d 

957 (1987). 

Sanchez argues that the trial court violated his due process rights 

because it failed to notify him that he would be punished if he consumed medical 

marijuana. He maintains that the trial court informed him that he could not use 

“illicit drugs” and that even his probation officer was not certain whether medical 
marijuana was prohibited. The parties briefed detailed arguments regarding the 

trial court’s discretion to prohibit medical marijuana and the adequacy of the trial 

court’s inquiry into Sanchez’s medical marijuana use. However, we cannot reach 

the merits of Sanchez’s due process argument because Sanchez conceded at the 

March 2020 violation hearing that his medical marijuana use violated his 

community control conditions. 

Even though the March 2020 hearing was set in response to a status 

report, Sanchez knew, or reasonably should have known, that the hearing was for a 

violation of his community control sanctions that could result in the revocation of 

his judicial release. The trial court’s docket called the hearing a “community control 

sanctions violation hearing” and a “hearing on alleged probation violation.” Sanchez 

retained counsel for the hearing. The trial court opened the hearing by stating, 

“We’re here today for a probation violation hearing.” During the hearing, Sanchez 

admitted to the violation. Defense counsel said, “Well, judge, he did it.” Defense 

counsel explained that he told Sanchez “no drugs” meant just that, and Sanchez was 

“willing to accept” the trial court’s punishment. Sanchez himself conceded that 

when he used medical marijuana, he did not follow the “absolute underlying word” 

of his community control conditions, and he didn’t think “things through.” Sanchez 

explained that using medical marijuana was a “mistake” and an “incompetent” 

decision. 

Sanchez discussed his medical marijuana card, physician’s letter, and 

medical conditions to mitigate his punishment. He did not argue that medical 
marijuana was or should have been permissible under the conditions of his 

community control, and he did not contend that he lacked notice that medical 

marijuana use would be a violation. Instead, he admitted to the violation and sought 

mitigation. 

We find that the trial court did not err in finding substantial proof that 

Sanchez had violated the conditions of his community control. Although the trial 

court had told Sanchez at the judicial release hearing that he could not use “illicit 

drugs,” the judgment entry stated, “no alcohol or drugs,” and the probation 

department’s standard terms include a “no tolerance” policy regarding drug use. 

During the hearing, Sanchez’s probation officer explained that Sanchez tested 

positive for marijuana, and Sanchez admitted that he used medical marijuana in 

violation of his community control sanctions. The admissions were substantial 

proof of the violation. See, e.g., State v. Kinser, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2020 CA 

00032, 2020-Ohio-5308, ¶ 24 (appellant’s admission of the violations presented 

the trial court with “substantial proof and competent credible evidence” that 

appellant had violated her community control sanctions). 

Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

finding Sanchez in violation of his conditions of community control, revoking his 

judicial release, and reimposing his prison sentence. We therefore overrule 

Sanchez’s sole assignment of error. 

Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the costs herein taxed. 
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

MARY J. BOYLE, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and 

LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR