[Cite as State v. Wiggins, 2022-Ohio-2718.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

CRAWFORD COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 3-21-25 

 v.

CARL W. WIGGINS, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court

Trial Court No. 20-CR-0349

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: August 8, 2022

APPEARANCES:

Howard A. Elliott for Appellant

Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee
Case No. 3-21-25

-2-

MILLER, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Carl W. Wiggins, appeals the November 16, 2021 

judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas revoking his judicial 

release and reimposing the balance of his 48-month prison term. For the reasons 

that follow, we affirm.

I. Background

{¶2} On September 29, 2020, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted 

Wiggins on Count One of having weapons while under disability in violation of 

R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a third-degree felony, and Count Two of possession of drugs

in violation of R.C. 2925.11, a fifth-degree felony. On November 23, 2020, 

Wiggins pleaded guilty to both counts of the indictment. The trial court proceeded 

immediately to sentencing. Following a joint sentencing recommendation between 

Wiggins and the State, the trial court sentenced Wiggins to 36 months in prison on 

Count One and 12 months in prison on Count Two, to be served consecutively for 

an aggregate term of 48 months in prison. As part of the arrangement, the State 

agreed to recommend judicial release after Wiggins served a portion of his prison 

term.

{¶3} On February 19, 2021, Wiggins filed a motion for judicial release, 

which the trial court granted on March 31, 2021. The trial court placed Wiggins on 
Case No. 3-21-25

-3-

community-control supervision for a period of five years “under the standard 

conditions and terms of the Crawford County Probation Department.”

{¶4} On August 16, 2021, the State filed a motion for Wiggins to show cause

why his judicial release should not be revoked. In its motion, the State alleged that 

Wiggins had violated the conditions of his community-control supervision by 

failing to report to his supervising officer on June 1, 2021, testing positive for THC, 

amphetamine, and methamphetamine, and admitting to having consumed marijuana 

and methamphetamine. Wiggins, who had been arrested pursuant to a warrant 

issued after he failed to meet with his supervising officer, was released on bond on 

September 5, 2021. Thereafter, on September 27, 2021, Wiggins failed to appear 

for a scheduled drug test and visit with his supervising officer. A warrant was again 

issued for Wiggins’s arrest, and when Wiggins was taken into custody on October 

6, 2021, he refused to submit to drug testing or sign a refused drug test form.

{¶5} At a revocation hearing on November 10, 2021, Wiggins admitted to 

violating the terms of his community-control supervision. The trial court then 

turned to decide whether to continue Wiggins’s judicial release. Based on 

Wiggins’s criminal history, including a 2005 conviction for felonious assault and a 

2013 conviction for having weapons while under disability, and the nature of his 

violations, the trial court elected to revoke Wiggins’s judicial release and reimpose 
Case No. 3-21-25

-4-

the balance of his prison sentence. The trial court filed a judgment entry to this 

effect on November 16, 2021.

II. Assignment of Error

{¶6} On December 23, 2021, Wiggins filed a notice of appeal.1 He raises the 

following assignment of error for our review:

At a hearing on revocation of judicial release, the trial court 

abused its discretion by examining the sentences [sic] factors of 

Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.12, 2929.13, 2929.14, by ignoring 

that the defendant-appellant had long standing issues for 

substance abuse for which the conditions of community control 

imposed when judicial release was granted, failed to address or 

refer the defendant-appellant to treatment.

III. Discussion

{¶7} In his assignment of error, Wiggins argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion by revoking his judicial release. Specifically, he maintains that it was 

unreasonable for the trial court to revoke his judicial release because the trial court 

did not require him to attend and complete a drug treatment program as a condition 

of his community-control supervision. Wiggins argues the trial court “set up a selffulfilling prophecy and set [him] up to fail” when it released him from prison 

without ordering drug treatment, and he asserts that the trial court should have 

continued his judicial release, with an added drug-treatment condition, rather than 

return him to prison.

1 Although untimely filed, we granted Wiggins leave to file a delayed appeal on January 13, 2022.
Case No. 3-21-25

-5-

{¶8} Ohio’s judicial release statute, R.C. 2929.20, provides in relevant part:

If the court grants a motion for judicial release under this section, the 

court shall order the release of the eligible offender, 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. If the court reimposes the reduced sentence, it may do so 

either concurrently with, or consecutive to, any new sentence imposed 

upon the eligible offender as a result of the violation that is a new 

offense.

R.C. 2929.20(K). “[W]hen a defendant is granted judicial release, he or she has 

already served a period of incarceration, and the remainder of that prison sentence 

is suspended pending either the successful completion of a period of community 

control or the defendant’s violation of a community control sanction.” State v. 

Alexander, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-07-45, 2008-Ohio-1485, ¶ 7. “While out on 

judicial release, if ‘an offender violates his community control requirements, the 

trial court may reimpose the original prison sentence and require the offender to 

serve the balance remaining on the original term.’” State v. Phipps, 3d Dist. 

Crawford No. 3-20-07, 2021-Ohio-258, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Mann, 3d Dist. 

Crawford No. 3-03-42, 2004-Ohio-4703, ¶ 8. However, “[t]he trial court may not 

alter the defendant’s original sentence except to reimpose the sentence 

consecutively to or concurrently with a new sentence it imposes as a result of the 

judicial release violation that is a new criminal offense.” State v. Jones, 3d Dist. 

Mercer Nos. 10-07-26 and 10-07-27, 2008-Ohio-2117, ¶ 15.
Case No. 3-21-25

-6-

{¶9} A trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s judicial release based 

on a violation of the conditions of his or her community-control supervision will not 

be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Arm, 3d Dist. Union Nos. 14-

14-03 and 14-14-04, 2014-Ohio-3771, ¶ 22. An abuse of discretion implies that the 

trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably. State v. Adams, 62 

Ohio St.2d 151, 157-158 (1980).

{¶10} Here, Wiggins argues that the trial court abused its discretion by 

revoking his judicial release because the trial court did not tailor the conditions of 

his community-control supervision to address the issues underlying his criminal 

behavior. He essentially argues that in the absence of a drug-treatment condition, it 

was inevitable that he would violate the conditions of his community-control 

supervision. We do not accept this argument. While it might have been prudent for 

the trial court to include a drug-treatment condition when it granted Wiggins judicial 

release, it had no duty to do so. State v. Webb, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-20-17, 

2021-Ohio-2637, ¶ 11. Irrespective of the steps the trial court took to aid Wiggins 

in addressing his drug use, Wiggins had a freestanding obligation to refrain from 

using drugs. Nothing precluded Wiggins from seeking out and entering a drug 

treatment program of his own volition. Rather than doing so, Wiggins failed to 

report to his supervising officer, admitted using drugs, and refused to submit to drug 

testing. These infractions, coupled with Wiggins’s fairly extensive criminal history, 
Case No. 3-21-25

-7-

amply support the trial court’s decision to revoke Wiggins’s judicial release and 

reimpose the balance of his prison term. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion.

{¶11} Wiggins’s assignment of error is overruled.

IV. Conclusion

{¶12} For the foregoing reasons, Wiggins’s assignment of error is overruled. 

Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned 

and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common 

Pleas.

Judgment Affirmed

ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.

/jlr