[Cite as State v. Wade, 2021-Ohio-2949.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

CHARLES WADE 

Defendant-Appellant 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Appellate Case No. 29017 

Trial Court Case Nos. 2020-CR-1551 

and 2020-CR-1595 

(Criminal Appeal from 

Common Pleas Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the 27th day of August, 2021. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by J. JOSHUA RIZZO, Atty. Reg. No. 0099218, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 

Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422

 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

MICHAEL J. SCARPELLI, Atty. Reg. No. 0093662, 210 West Main Street, Troy, Ohio 

45373 

 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

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

 

WELBAUM, J. 
-2- 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Charles Wade, appeals from the judgments of the 

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas revoking his community control sanctions. 

For the reasons outlined below, the judgments of the trial court will be affirmed. 

Facts and Course of Proceedings 

{¶ 2} On July 14, 2020, Wade pled guilty in Montgomery C.P. No. 2020-CR-1595 

to one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a fourth-degree felony. 

Wade also pled guilty in Montgomery C.P. No. 2020-CR-1551 to one count of harassment 

with a body substance in violation of R.C. 2921.38(B), a fifth-degree felony. Following 

Wade’s guilty pleas, on July 28, 2020, the trial court sentenced Wade to serve a term of 

community control sanctions not to exceed five years for both cases. 

{¶ 3} As part of his community control sanctions, the trial court required Wade to 

abide by several conditions, including that he attend and complete the MonDay Program. 

The trial court also advised Wade that if he violated any condition of his community 

control, or violated any law, it could impose a longer time under the same sanction, a 

more restrictive sanction, 12 months of local incarceration, or up to a total term of 30 

months in prison, i.e., 18 months for domestic violence and 12 months for harassment 

with a bodily substance, served consecutively. 

{¶ 4} On November 2, 2020, Wade’s probation officer filed notices of violation of 

community control in both cases asserting that Wade had failed to complete the MonDay 

Program as ordered by the trial court. The notices indicated that Wade had been 

clinically discharged from the MonDay Program on October 30, 2020. 
-3- 

{¶ 5} On December 22, 2020, the trial court held a revocation hearing. During this 

hearing, the State presented testimony from Wade’s probation officer, Ryan Addison. 

Addison testified that completing the MonDay Program was a condition of Wade’s 

community control and that Wade had violated that condition when he was unsuccessfully 

discharged from the MonDay Program due to his noncompliant behavior. During his 

testimony, Addison identified State’s Exhibit 4, which was a discharge summary prepared 

by Wade’s clinician at the MonDay Program. Addison testified that the discharge 

summary outlined the reasons for Wade’s unsuccessful discharge. The clinician who 

authored the discharge summary did not testify at the revocation hearing. The discharge 

summary was admitted into evidence without any objection from Wade. 

{¶ 6} The only other witness to testify at the revocation hearing was Wade himself. 

During his testimony, Wade claimed that he suffered from certain physical and mental 

ailments that negatively affected his performance in the MonDay Program. Wade also 

testified that he performed every task that had been required of him and that he had not 

willfully violated his community control sanctions. 

{¶ 7} After the revocation hearing, the trial court issued its decision from the bench 

and revoked Wade’s community control sanctions. The trial court based its decision on 

the information contained in the discharge summary. Specifically, the trial court stated: 

I give Mr. Wade great credit for the comments that he made during 

his * * * testimony. And I have to weigh that against the information from 

MonDay Program provided in its discharge of Mr. Wade, as well. And 

some of that information includes that he minimally participated in individual 

and group treatment; and while he did complete mandatory assignments, 
-4- 

his treatment work was done quickly and with no internal thought; he did not 

complete his parenting or anger management workbooks as required for 

the completion of those classes; his work was lacking of depth about his 

court issues; he did not apply the information, coping strategies or 

intervention from his treatment into practice or how to deal with life 

stressors; and while he did participate in individual sessions with this 

clinician, frequently the session would devolve into complaints about 

MonDay, complaints about his unresolved medical issues or threats of 

pending lawsuits against MonDay; he would make statements like 

[cognitive behavioral therapy] doesn’t work and I won’t fake it to make it. 

When he entered the Program, he reported that he didn’t need to be 

there because his only problem was alcohol and he had already obtained 

sobriety prior to entry and efforts to have him address those alcohol issues 

and other problematic behaviors were largely unsuccessful. And he had 

significant difficulty getting along with others in the Program specifically the 

staff at the MonDay Program. And they concluded that his prognosis for 

success in the Program was poor and, therefore, the MonDay Program 

made the determination to unsuccessfully discharge him from the MonDay 

Program. And there’s no dispute that he was unsuccessfully discharged 

from the MonDay Program. 

He was there for 80 days, filed 25 grievances while he was there, 

also stopped staff on the day floor several times to complain about his 

various concerns, submitted 19 requests to see staff which exceeded the 
-5- 

typical resident requests. And although he did successfully complete the 

two behavioral contracts that he was placed upon, the determination was 

made by the MonDay Program that the level of attention and care that Mr. 

Wade needed simply exceeded the ability of the Program. And so it 

unsuccessfully discharged him from the Program. 

And it is that unsuccessful discharge from the MonDay Program that 

is the basis for the petitions to revoke him from supervision. And, 

therefore, as a result, the Court will find that there is substantial and 

significant evidence that Mr. Wade has violated the terms and conditions of 

his supervision and it is appropriate then at this time to impose an 

alternative sentence upon him. 

Hearing Trans. (Dec. 22, 2020), p. 58-60. 

{¶ 8} Following its decision to revoke Wade’s community control sanctions, the trial 

court sentenced Wade to serve 18 months in prison for domestic violence in Case No. 

2020-CR-1595 and 12 months in prison for harassment with a bodily substance in Case 

No. 2020-CR-1551. The trial court ordered these sentences to be served concurrently 

for a total term of 18 months in prison. Wade now appeals from the trial court’s judgment 

revoking his community control sanctions and sentencing him to prison, raising two 

assignments of error for our review. 

First Assignment of Error 

{¶ 9} Under his first assignment of error, Wade contends that the trial court 

committed plain error by relying solely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the discharge summary, 
-6- 

to revoke his community control sanctions. To support this claim, Wade contends that 

the admission and consideration of the discharge summary violated his due process right 

to confront adverse witnesses. Upon review, we find no plain error that necessitates 

reversal in this case. 

{¶ 10} “ ‘Revocation hearings are not subject to the rules of evidence, thus allowing 

for the admission of hearsay evidence.’ ” State v. McDargh, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2015-CA27, 2016-Ohio-1132, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Westrick, 196 Ohio App.3d 141, 2011-Ohio1169, 962 N.E.2d 818 (3d Dist.). (Other citation omitted.) This is because a “ 

‘revocation hearing is an informal proceeding, not a criminal trial[.]’ ” Id., quoting 

Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio App.3d 26, 36, 601 N.E.2d 61 (10th Dist.1991), citing State 

v. Miller, 42 Ohio St.2d 102, 106, 326 N.E.2d 259 (1975). Therefore, during revocation 

hearings, “ ‘the trier of fact should be able to consider any reliable and relevant evidence 

to determine whether the [defendant] has violated the conditions of his [supervision].’ ” 

Id. 

{¶ 11} “Nevertheless, in some circumstances, the admission of hearsay evidence 

at a revocation hearing can deny the defendant his due process right to confront and 

cross-examine adverse witnesses.” State v. Brandon, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23336, 

2010-Ohio-1902, ¶ 19, citing State v. Dunning, 2d Dist. Greene No. 08-CA-07, 2009-Ohio691, ¶ 10. This includes, for example, instances where “ ‘[hearsay] evidence is the only 

evidence presented and is crucial to a determination of a probation violation.’ ” McDargh

at ¶ 13, quoting State v. Ryan, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-06-55, 2007-Ohio-4743, ¶ 9, citing 

State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808, 2006-Ohio-2353, 853 N.E.2d 675 (6th Dist.). 

{¶ 12} As noted above, Wade contends that the trial court’s decision revoking his 
-7- 

community control sanctions was based solely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the discharge 

summary, thereby violating his right to due process. Wade, however, did not object to 

the admission of the discharge summary into evidence, let alone claim that its admission 

violated his due process rights. “The failure to object to a due process violation during a 

community control revocation hearing waives all but plain error.” State v. Hatton, 2d Dist. 

Montgomery No. 25959, 2014-Ohio-3354, ¶ 10, citing State v. Blakeman, 2d Dist. 

Montgomery No. 18983, 2002 WL 857659, *3 (May 3, 2002). “For plain error to exist, 

the defect in the trial proceedings must be obvious and must have affected the outcome 

of the trial.” State v. Davis, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28923, 2021-Ohio-1833, ¶ 18, citing 

State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 2007-Ohio-4642, 873 N.E.2d 306, ¶ 16. 

{¶ 13} Upon review, we find that the discharge summary was not the only evidence 

presented at Wade’s revocation hearing, as the State presented testimony from Wade’s 

probation officer, Ryan Addison. Addison testified that he became Wade’s probation 

officer after Wade entered the MonDay Program, and that Wade was required to complete 

the MonDay Program as a condition of his community control sanctions. Addison also 

testified that Wade was not compliant in the MonDay Program and was terminated from 

the program unsuccessfully. Addison further testified that prior to Wade’s unsuccessful 

termination, he, Wade, and Wade’s MonDay clinician attended two interventions during 

which they discussed Wade’s behavior. 

{¶ 14} Addison testified that during the first intervention, they discussed Wade’s 

“overall noncompliance [as] far as [Wade] being defiant, argumentative, utilizing 

grievances as a way to get attention, threatening suicide when [Wade] didn’t get his way, 

[and] constantly complaining of his medical state with his * * * bowels * * * because he 
-8- 

wasn’t able to use the restroom.” Hearing Trans. (Dec. 22, 2020), p. 28. Addison 

testified that they also discussed Wade’s complaints of wrist pain and noted that “[i]t was 

later found that * * * [Wade could] be seen on video doing pushups without any type of 

issue [.]” Id. 

{¶ 15} Addison additionally testified that the second intervention “took place 

because [of Wade’s] unwillingness to change his behavior and his unwillingness to work 

on himself and work on the things that got him there such as * * * his addiction to * * * 

alcohol and not fully engaging in the program.” Id. at 29. Addison testified that Wade 

was “pretty upset” during both interventions and that Wade was acting like a victim by 

blaming and accusing others. Id. Addison also testified that Wade’s behavior did not 

change from the first to the second intervention. 

{¶ 16} With regard to the discharge summary, Addison testified that, per protocol, 

he received the discharge summary, which outlined the reasoning for Wade’s 

unsuccessful discharge. Most significantly, Addison testified that his testimony 

regarding Wade’s performance was outlined in the discharge summary. This indicated 

(and the actual discharge summary confirmed) that Wade’s discharge from the program 

was based, at least in part, on the issues that Addison testified about at the revocation 

hearing. 

{¶ 17} Because Addison’s testimony touched on the reasons for Wade’s 

unsuccessful discharge, we find that Addison’s testimony, standing alone, would have 

been sufficient for the trial court to revoke Wade’s community control sanctions. 

Although the record indicates that the trial court relied solely on the discharge summary 

when revoking Wade’s community control, even without the discharge summary, the trial 
-9- 

court could have revoked Wade’s community control based on Addison’s testimony. 

Therefore, Wade has not established plain error with regard to the trial court’s relying 

solely on the discharge summary, as the outcome of the revocation proceeding would not 

have been different had the discharge summary not been admitted into evidence. See 

generally State v. Pullen-Morrow, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24862, 2012-Ohio-3605, 

¶ 24-25 (finding no plain error where the result of a revocation hearing would not have 

been different even if the discharge summary/testimony regarding the contents of the 

discharge summary had been excluded). 

{¶ 18} Wade’s first assignment of error is overruled. 

Second Assignment of Error 

{¶ 19} Under his second assignment of error, Wade contends that the trial court’s 

decision to revoke his community control sanctions was an abuse of discretion. 

Specifically, Wade argues that the trial court’s decision to revoke his community control 

was unreasonable in light of the testimony he provided at the revocation hearing. We 

disagree with Wade’s claim. 

{¶ 20} “The right to continue on community control depends upon compliance with 

the conditions of community control and is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial 

court.” State v. Eastman, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2020-CA-5, 2021-Ohio-392, ¶ 13, citing 

State v. Lewis, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23505, 2010-Ohio-3652, ¶ 11. “Accordingly, 

we review the trial court’s revocation of community control for an abuse of discretion.” 

Id., citing State v. Morgan, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26132, 2014-Ohio-5071, ¶ 11. “A 

trial court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, 
-10-

unconscionable, or arbitrary.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 

343, 2013-Ohio-966, 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 34. “An abuse of discretion most often involves 

an unreasonable decision that is not supported by a sound reasoning process.” State v. 

Pate, 2021-Ohio-1838, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 36 (2d Dist.), citing AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River 

Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 

(1990). 

{¶ 21} As previously noted, Wade claims that the trial court’s decision revoking his 

community control sanctions was unreasonable in light of his testimony at the revocation 

hearing. Specifically, Wade testified that his performance in the MonDay Program was 

affected by physical injuries that he sustained from being beaten in jail by fellow inmates 

prior to entering the program. Wade testified that his ribs were broken and that one of 

his ribs punctured his intestines. Wade testified that the puncture resulted in a blood clot 

that led to a prolonged bowel obstruction, which required him to be on laxatives for an 

extended period of time. According to Wade, his bowel condition caused him 

embarrassment and pain on a daily basis. 

{¶ 22} In addition to his physical condition, Wade testified that he suffered from 

mental issues such as paranoia and delusions, which caused him to feel as if MonDay 

staff members were trying to get him kicked out of the program. Wade also testified that 

he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. According to Wade, his 

physical and mental ailments were the source of his negative personal interactions with 

MonDay staff and were the cause of the several grievances he filed while in the program. 

Wade testified that he otherwise completed all the required tasks in the program and that 

he never willfully violated the conditions of his community control sanctions. 
-11-

{¶ 23} It was, however, within the province of the trial court to determine what 

weight, if any, to give to Wade’s testimony. Simply because Wade disagrees with the 

trial court’s resolution of the factual disputes in this case does not indicate that the trial 

court’s decision revoking his community control was an abuse of discretion. Therefore, 

because the evidence established that Wade was required to complete the MonDay 

Program as a condition of his community control sanctions and that Wade was 

unsuccessfully discharged from the MonDay Program due to his noncompliant behavior, 

the trial court’s decision revoking Wade’s community control for failing to complete the 

MonDay Program was not unreasonable and thus not an abuse of discretion. 

{¶ 24} Wade’s second assignment of error is overruled. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 25} Having overruled both assignments of error raised by Wade, the judgments 

of the trial court are affirmed. 

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

DONOVAN, J. and HALL, J., concur. 

Copies sent to: 

Mathias H. Heck, Jr. 

J. Joshua Rizzo 

Michael J. Scarpelli 

Hon. Mary Lynn Wiseman