[Cite as State v. McQuade, 2023-Ohio-1483.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

No. 112158

v. :

SAMANTHA MCQUADE, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 4, 2023

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR-22-668521-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Eamonn McDermott, for appellant. 

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and

John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee. 

ANITA LASTER MAYS, A.J.:

Defendant-Appellant Samantha McQuade (“McQuade”) appeals the 

trial court’s imposition of certain community control terms. Plaintiff-appellee state 

of Ohio concedes the error pursuant to Loc.App.R. 16(B). We vacate the drug and 
alcohol conditions of the community-control sanctions, and remand after a 

thorough review of the law and record. 

On September 14, 2022, McQuade pleaded guilty to attempted

violation of an anti-stalking protection order in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 

2919.27, a fourth-degree felony, and telecommunications harassment under 

R.C. 2917.21(A)(1), a first-degree misdemeanor. 

McQuade was sentenced on October 25, 2022. The record reveals 

that McQuade was 27 years of age at the time with no criminal record, a single 

mother of two daughters, and was employed as a dispatcher for the Cleveland Police 

Department (“CPD”) at the time of the offense. McQuade was no longer with the 

CPD due to the incident but secured employment with a window cleaning company. 

Her current employer said she was an excellent employee. McQuade hoped to 

return to the CPD at some point.

McQuade and the victim had children by the same father, a fact that 

fostered conflict between the mothers. At the sentencing hearing, McQuade 

apologized to the victim, and her family provided letters on her behalf. McQuade 

also stated that she had not been in contact with the victim for almost a year and 

would not contact her again. 

The victim advised the trial court that she blamed the father for 

exacerbating the problem. The protection order was secured because McQuade, 

either directly or through friends, had harassed and threatened the victim and her 

children. 
Defense counsel added that the current violation stemmed from 

McQuade driving by the victim’s house and honking the horn. Counsel had also 

stressed to McQuade’s family and friends that they were not to violate the protection 

order and that any violation would be treated as contact by McQuade. 

McQuade was sentenced to community-control sanctions for five 

years on each count. The trial court reiterated that any violation of the protection 

order by McQuade’s family or friends would land McQuade in prison because they 

served as an extension of McQuade. “And understand that there’s no trial on a 

probation violation. I can hear hearsay, somebody can call me up, and I can use that 

to send you to prison.” (Tr. 50-51.) McQuade was also informed that there would 

be no early release if probation was violated and that there would not be a second 

chance, “especially on this case.” (Tr. 49.)

In addition to following the standards of probation and instructions 

of the probation officer, the conditions included: 

No drugs or alcohol.

Do not patronize any location where drugs and/or alcohol are sold, 

served, or used. This includes but is not limited to restaurants, bars, 

sporting venues, concerts, family weddings, backyard barbeques, 

private parties, political events, etc.

The defendant must submit to random testing. When requested, the 

defendant must know the hours of the lab and when specimens are 

taken.

Journal entry No. 131837228, p. 1 (Oct. 25, 2022.)

McQuade assigns a single error: 
The trial court unreasonably imposed community control sanctions 

that were not related to rehabilitation, administering justice, or 

ensuring good behavior when it prohibited Ms. McQuade for five years 

from using alcohol or being near any location where alcohol was sold, 

served, or used.

“R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) governs the authority of the trial court to impose 

conditions of community control.” State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177, 2004-Ohio4888, 814 N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 10. The section provides that “the trial court may impose 

one or more community sanctions, including residential, nonresidential, and 

financial sanctions, and any other conditions that it considers ‘appropriate.’” Id. 

“The General Assembly has thus granted broad discretion to trial courts in imposing 

community-control sanctions.” Id. 

An appellate court reviews a trial court’s imposition of communitycontrol sanctions for an abuse of discretion. State v. Cintron, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 110600, 2022-Ohio-305, ¶ 18, citing id. “A court abuses its discretion when a 

legal rule entrusts a decision to a judge’s discretion and the judge’s exercise of that 

discretion is outside of the legally permissible range of choices.” State v. Hackett, 

164 Ohio St.3d 74, 2020-Ohio-6699, 172 N.E.3d 75, ¶ 19.

“[A] court will not be found to have abused its discretion in fashioning 

a community-control sanction as long as the condition is reasonably related to the 

probationary goals of doing justice, rehabilitating the offender, and insuring good 

behavior.” State v. Chapman, 163 Ohio St.3d 290, 2020-Ohio-6730, 170 N.E.3d 6, 

¶ 8, citing Talty at ¶ 12. “Further, a condition ““‘cannot be overly broad so as to 
unnecessarily impinge upon the probationer’s liberty.””” Id., quoting id. at ¶ 13, 

quoting State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 52, 550 N.E.2d 469 (1990). 

In Jones, the court “established a three-part test to assess whether a

community-control condition is reasonably related to the goals of community 

control.” Chapman at ¶ 23. “A court must ‘consider whether the condition (1) is 

reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender, (2) has some relationship to the 

crime of which the offender was convicted, and (3) relates to conduct which is 

criminal or reasonably related to future criminality and serves the statutory ends of 

probation.’” Id., quoting Jones at 53. 

McQuade argues that the alcohol restrictions have no relationship to 

the convictions in this case. As the trial court was advised at the sentencing hearing, 

McQuade had no history of alcohol or substance abuse. McQuade also argues that 

the condition “fails to promote the interests of justice, and instead works contrary 

to rehabilitation by chilling and straining relationships with family and friends.” 

Appellant’s brief, p. 4.

McQuade relies on this court’s decision in State v. Mahon, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 106043, 2018-Ohio-295. Mahon was convicted of one count of 

unlawful use of a telecommunications device. Id. at ¶ 1. The community-control 

conditions imposed included that Mahon was prohibited from consuming drugs or 

alcohol and attending any function or place where drugs or alcohol were used, sold,

or served. This court determined that the restrictions did not meet the Jones test
and declared that there must be a nexus between the crime and the use of drugs or 

alcohol to support the imposition of the community-control conditions. 

As is true in the instant case, the record in Mahon “contain[ed] no 

mention whatsoever of drugs or alcohol having been involved in the incident for 

which Mahon was convicted.” Id. at ¶ 11. As is also true in the instant case, there 

was no indication that Mahon had a history of alcohol or drug abuse “that could 

possibly support the trial court’s desire to rehabilitate” Mahon. Id. Thus, the record 

in the instant case supports that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed 

the drug and alcohol community control-conditions. 

The state concedes the error. Thus, McQuade’s sole assignment of 

error is sustained for failure to meet the Jones test. We vacate the portions of the 

sentencing entry that provide: 

No drugs or alcohol.

Do not patronize any location where drugs and/or alcohol are sold, 

served, or used. This includes but is not limited to restaurants, bars, 

sporting venues, concerts, family weddings, backyard barbeques, 

private parties, political events, etc.

The defendant must submit to random testing. When requested, the 

defendant must know the hours of the lab and when specimens are 

taken.

The quoted portion of the stated judgment regarding the drug and 

alcohol conditions is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for 

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee 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.

_______________________________________

ANITA LASTER MAYS, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR