[Cite as State v. Hampton, 2023-Ohio-1591.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

 Appellee 

v. 

ANDRE L. HAMPTON

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

C.A. No. 29612

Trial Court Case Nos. 2021 CR 00756; 

2021 CR 03539

(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas 

Court)

. . . . . . . . . . .

O P I N I O N

Rendered on May 12, 2023

. . . . . . . . . . . 

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by MICHAEL P. ALLEN, Attorney for Appellee

 

JOHNNA M. SHIA, Attorney for Appellant

 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TUCKER, J.

{¶ 1} Andre L. Hampton appeals from two judgments of the Montgomery County 

Court of Common Pleas, which revoked his community control sanctions in two separate 

cases upon a finding that he had violated the conditions of his community control. 

Following revocation, the court sentenced him to serve an aggregate 36-month prison 
-2-

term in Montgomery C.P. No. 2021 CR 3539 and an aggregate 12-month prison term in 

Montgomery C.P. No. 2021 CR 756; the prison terms in the two cases were to be served 

concurrently. For the following reasons, the judgments will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} In April 2021, Hampton was indicted on one count of possession of fentanyl, 

one count of possession of heroin and one count of possession of cocaine in Case No.

2021-CR-756. In September 2021, Hampton entered a plea of guilty to each of the three 

charges. 

{¶ 3} On December 13, 2021, Hampton was indicted on one count of having 

weapons while under disability (prior drug conviction), one count of felony receiving stolen 

property, and one count of misdemeanor receiving stolen property for offenses that 

occurred in October 2021 in Case No. 2021-CR-3539. On December 22, 2021, 

Hampton entered guilty pleas to the first two counts, and the misdemeanor count was 

dismissed. 

{¶ 4} On December 23, 2021, Hampton was sentenced to a five-year term of 

community control sanctions in each case, one of the conditions of which was attendance 

at the MonDay program. The judgment entries provided that violations of the community 

control sanctions could result in the imposition of an aggregate 48-month prison term. 

{¶ 5} In April 2022, a notice of revocation of community control was filed in each

case because Hampton had admitted to, and tested positive for, drug use resulting in his 

discharge from treatment at the MonDay Community Correctional Facility. In May 2022, 
-3-

the trial court retained Hampton on community control with modified sanctions which 

required him to attend treatment at the STAR Community Justice Center. The 

modification orders again stated that a 48-month prison term could be imposed if the 

community control sanctions were violated. 

{¶ 6} On August 22, 2022, a second notice of revocation of community control was 

filed in both cases because Hampton had been unsuccessfully discharged from the STAR 

treatment facility. An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for September 21, 2022. On 

that date, Hampton, who was represented by counsel, entered an admission to the 

charged violations. The trial court found that Hampton was no longer amenable to 

community control sanctions and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of three 

years.

{¶ 7} Hampton appeals. 

II. Admission 

{¶ 8} Hampton’s first assignment of error states:

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT 

ACCEPTED HAMPTON’S ADMISSION OF A VIOLATION OF 

COMMUNITY CONTROL AND SENTENCED HIM TO PRISON, BECAUSE 

HIS ADMISSION WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY, NOR 

VOLUNTARILY ENTERED.

{¶ 9} Hampton claims that the trial court erred in accepting his admission to the 

alleged violations of his community control sanctions. In support, he contends that the 
-4-

admission was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered because the record 

does not clearly demonstrate whether his admission was “in exchange for either a new 

alternative sentence of three years with continued [substance abuse] treatment or a jointly 

recommended sentence of three years, with the possibility of continued treatment.” 1

Hampton claims the trial court should have conducted an examination in order to 

determine whether Hampton understood the consequences of his admission.

{¶ 10} We begin by noting that Ohio courts have repeatedly stated that a

community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial. State v. Roberts, 2017-Ohio481, 84 N.E.3d 339, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Cofer, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22798, 

2009-Ohio-890, ¶ 12; State v. Parsons, 4th Dist. Athens No. 09CA4, 2009-Ohio-7068, 

¶ 11; State v. Motz, 2020-Ohio-4356, 158 N.E.3d 641, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.). Accordingly, the 

requirements for a full Crim.R. 11(C)(2) plea colloquy do not apply to a communitycontrol-violation hearing, because a defendant faced with revocation of community control 

is not afforded the full spectrum of rights given to a defendant in a criminal prosecution. 

State v. Cunningham, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2014-CA-100, 2015-Ohio-2554, ¶ 14; State v. 

Patton, 2016-Ohio-4867, 68 N.E.3d 273, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.), citing Parsons at ¶ 11; State v. 

Alexander, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-070021, 2007-Ohio-5457, ¶ 7. 

{¶ 11} Next, we note that the original judgment entries adequately explained the 

consequences of violating the terms and conditions of community control. Both indicated 

that violation of the terms and conditions of community control could result in an 

1 At the same time, Hampton admits “[t]he record clearly indicated that Hampton’s 

admission to the violation was in exchange for a lesser alternative sentence of three years 

for both cases, but Hampton also expected to receive continued treatment.” 
-5-

aggregate prison term of 48 months. And, when the community control sanctions were 

modified in May 2022, the trial court’s order reiterated that future violations could result in 

the imposition of an aggregate 48-month prison term. 

{¶ 12} Further, we simply disagree with Hampton’s claim that the record was

unclear concerning what would occur upon his admission that he had violated the 

community control conditions. During a sidebar at the start of the hearing, defense 

counsel informed the court that Hampton had stated that he wanted to do “the three” if 

that option was “even on the table.” Tr. p. 2. The trial court then stated, on the record 

and in Hampton’s presence, that defense counsel had stated that Hampton “intends to 

admit the violation with the understanding the Court would be sentencing him to a term 

of three years.” Tr. p. 3. Thereafter, Hampton answered affirmatively that he wanted to 

admit to a violation of the terms of his community control sanctions. The trial court went 

on to impose a three-year prison term with credit for 309 days served. 

{¶ 13} The mere fact that counsel wanted the record to reflect Hampton’s desire 

to remain on community control so that he could receive a third drug treatment opportunity 

does not mandate a conclusion that Hampton believed the court would do so. 

{¶ 14} Because Hampton did not dispute the violation and there is no evidence to 

indicate he failed to understand the rights he waived when he readily admitted to the 

violations, we find this argument lacks merit. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is 

overruled. 

III. Sentencing
-6-

{¶ 15} Hampton asserts the following as his second assignment of error:

HAMPTON’S PRISON SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO LAW 

BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT STATE ON THE RECORD, NOR 

IN ITS SENTENCING ENTRY THAT IT CONSIDERED THE SENTENCING 

FACTORS PRIOR TO IMPOSING A PRISON TERM.

{¶ 16} In this assignment of error, Hampton claims that the trial court erred in 

sentencing because it failed to consider the principles and purposes of sentencing set 

forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.

{¶ 17} When a defendant violates the conditions of his community control, “R.C. 

2929.15(B) provides the trial court [with] a great deal of latitude in sentencing the 

offender.” State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, 814 N.E.2d 837, ¶ 20. 

A trial court has the option of imposing “a longer period of community control, a more 

restrictive community-control sanction, or a prison term of any length within the range of 

that available for the original offense, up to the maximum that the trial court specified at 

the first sentencing hearing.” Id.; R.C. 2929.15(B). “Any prison term imposed must be 

within the range of prison terms available for the underlying offense and must not exceed 

the prison term specified in the notice provided to the offender at the sentencing hearing. 

R.C. 2929.15(B)(3).” State v. Kernall, 2019-Ohio-3070, 132 N.E.3d 758, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.). 

{¶ 18} We find no merit to Hampton’s argument that the trial court failed to consider 

R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, as neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court 

to make any specific factual findings on the record. State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 

2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 20, citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-
-7-

Ohio-2669, 951 N.E.2d 381, ¶ 31. Rather, the law only requires that the record 

demonstrate that the trial court properly considered the purposes and principles of 

sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. 

State v. Peoples, 2022-Ohio-953, 186 N.E.3d 859, ¶ 53 (10th Dist.). This court has held 

that a trial court's consideration of the statutory sentencing factors may be presumed from 

a silent record. State v. Imber, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2011-CA-63, 2012-Ohio-3720, ¶ 26; 

State v. Neff, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2012-CA-31, 2012-Ohio-6047, ¶ 5. 

{¶ 19} Though the sentencing court in this case did not specifically refer to R.C. 

2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 at sentencing, the record supports a finding that it considered 

the principles and purposes of sentencing and seriousness and recidivism factors when 

it revoked Hampton’s community control and imposed a prison term. The court stated 

that it had reviewed reports and records and had determined that Hampton was “not 

amenable to further community control sanctions.” Tr. p. 5. 

{¶ 20} Hampton's sentence fell within the permissible statutory range and did not 

exceed the maximum prison term that was specified by the trial court at Hampton’s initial 

sentencing. Furthermore, contrary to Hampton’s assertions, the record reflects that the 

trial court considered the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12 and the 

principles and purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 in imposing a 

prison term for his violation of his community control sanctions.

{¶ 21} The second assignment of error is overruled.

IV. Conclusion
-8-

{¶ 22} The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

WELBAUM, P.J. and EPLEY, J., concur.