[Cite as State v. Brooks, 2018-Ohio-2903.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsCHRISTOPHER BROOKS 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

Case No. 17CA93 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Common 

Pleas Court, Case NO. 2016-CR-707 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 13, 2018 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

MIKE DEWINE JOHN C. O'DONNELL 

Ohio Attorney General 10 West Newlon Place 

By: MICAH R. AULT Mansfield, Ohio 44902 

615 W. Superior Ave., 11th Floor 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
«Court» County, Case No. «Case_No» 2

Hoffman, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant Christopher Brooks appeals the judgment entered by the 

Richland County Common Pleas Court finding him in violation of the terms of his 

community control and sentencing him to fifteen months incarceration. Appellee is the 

state of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 

{¶2} On April 25, 2017, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault upon a 

plea of guilty, and placed on four years community control. On August 28, 2017, his 

probation officer filed notice of violation of the terms of his probation. The violation notice 

included four counts: failing to notify his supervising officer of his residence; failing to pay 

court costs, fines and supervision fees; missing fourteen office visits with his supervising 

officer; and failing to report contact with police officers in July of 2017 when he was 

assaulted. 

{¶3} The case proceeded to trial in the Richland County Common Pleas Court. 

Appellant admitted all violations except for failing to notify his probation officer of his 

residence. Appellant testified he had been assaulted and underwent surgery on his leg 

due to his injuries. He acknowledged not reporting the incident to his probation officer, 

but claimed he believed the investigating officer reported the incident to his probation 

officer. He testified he called his probation officer on May 5, 2017, to let him know, “I 

really particularly wasn’t feeling doing probation[.]” Tr. 31. He testified his employer 

would not allow him to come back to work until he was off probation, and “then that’s 

when I had decided to stop reporting.” Tr. 34. 
«Court» County, Case No. «Case_No» 3

{¶4} The trial court found Appellant had not committed the first charge of violation 

of community control, failure to notify his probation officer of his residence. He found 

Appellant had committed the remaining three violations. 

{¶5} Counsel requested a prison sentence based on Appellant’s desire to not be 

placed on probation. The trial court noted Appellant’s long criminal history, including four 

assault and battery convictions, drug abuse, two driving while intoxicated convictions, 

carrying a concealed weapon, receiving stolen property, theft, menacing, resisting arrest, 

criminal trespass, dangerous ordnance, obstructing officers, four disorderly conduct 

convictions, criminal damaging, two convictions of domestic violence, telecommunication 

harassment, and attempted aggravated assault. He had twice been sent to prison, in 2000 

and again in 2005. The trial court sentenced Appellant to fifteen months incarceration. 

Immediately upon the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, Appellant stated, “I would 

like to appeal the sentence right now.” Tr. 42. 

{¶6} It is from the October 3, 2017 judgment finding Appellant in violation of 

community control and sentencing him to fifteen months incarceration Appellant 

prosecutes this appeal, assigning as error: 

 “I. THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION TO TERMINATE 

DEFENDANT/APPELLANT’S COMMUNITY CONTROL WAS NOT BASED 

ON ‘SUBSTANTIAL PROOF.’ 

 “II. THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE 

OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS 

TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.” 
«Court» County, Case No. «Case_No» 4

I. 

{¶7} Appellant argues the finding he violated the terms of his community control 

is against the manifest weight of the evidence. He argues his injuries from the June 24, 

2017, assault rendered him unable to make office appointments. He further argues he 

was unable to work, thus he was unable to pay court costs and fines. He also argues he 

believed the investigating officer would notify his probation officer about the assault, and 

therefore he was relieved of the responsibility for doing so. 

{¶8} In State v. Taylor, 5th Dist. Richland No. 17CA29, 2017-Ohio-8996, ¶25, we 

set forth the standard of review for revocation of community control: 

 A community control or probation revocation is not a criminal trial; 

therefore, appellee is not required to establish a violation of the terms of 

community control “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Ryan, supra, 2007–Ohio–

4743, ¶ 7, citing State v. Hylton, 75 Ohio App.3d 778, 600 N.E.2d 821 (4th 

Dist. 1991). Instead, the state must show “substantial” proof appellant 

violated the terms of his community control sanctions. Id. Substantial 

evidence is akin to a preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof. State 

v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808, 2006–Ohio–2353, 853 N.E.2d 675, at ¶ 18, 

citing State v. Hayes, 6th Dist. No. WD–00–075, unreported, 2001 WL 

909291 (Aug. 10, 2001). “Substantial evidence is considered to consist of 

more than a mere scintilla of evidence, but somewhat less than a 

preponderance.” Id., citations omitted. 
«Court» County, Case No. «Case_No» 5

{¶9} Appellant admitted missing fourteen visits with his probation officer, 

admitted he had not paid court costs and fines, and admitted he failed to notify his 

probation officer he had contact with police officers on the night of the assault. While he 

now argues his injuries prevented him from complying with the terms of his community 

control, Appellant testified on May 5, 2017, prior to the assault, he called his probation 

officer to let him know he “wasn’t feeling doing probation.” Tr. 31. He further testified 

upon contacting his old employer and finding out he would not be hired back while he 

remained on probation, he “decided to stop reporting.” Tr. 34. He further admitted at the 

time he was sentenced for the underlying offense, he wanted to go to prison rather than 

being placed on probation. Tr. 24. Appellant’s testimony demonstrated he did not intend 

to comply with the terms of his community control even before his injuries from the assault 

potentially impaired his ability to do so. Appellant’s testimony alone provided substantial 

proof he violated the terms of his community control. 

{¶10} The first assignment of error is overruled. 

II. 

{¶11} In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues counsel was ineffective 

for agreeing with Appellant in seeking a prison term rather than community control. 

{¶12} A properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. State v. Hamblin, 37 

Ohio St.3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). Therefore, in order to prevail on a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must show counsel's performance fell below 

an objective standard of reasonable representation and but for counsel’s error, the result 

of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 
«Court» County, Case No. «Case_No» 6

104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674(1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 

373 (1989). In other words, appellant must show that counsel’s conduct so undermined 

the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as 

having produced a just result. Id. 

{¶13} Appellant testified he wanted to go to prison rather than be placed on 

community control at the time of his original sentencing for aggravated assault. At 

sentencing in the instant case, Appellant again stated he had repeatedly asked to be sent 

to prison on the underlying offense. Appellant felt he was looking at a sentence between 

six and nine months because it had been so long since he had been convicted of a crime. 

Tr. 36. Counsel noted his history had been “benign” since 2004, and “by and large” 

Appellant had managed to stay out of trouble. Tr. 40. Counsel stated, “During the 

underlying case, he wanted prison is what I understand. So we are asking the court to 

impose that now.” Tr. 40. 

{¶14} Appellant relies on his immediate request for an appeal to argue while he 

wanted a prison sentence on the underlying case, he did not agree with counsel’s request 

for prison in the instant case. However, it is not clear if he was unhappy with a prison 

sentence in lieu of probation, or with the length of the sentence imposed, as he believed 

he would receive a sentence of six to nine months and received fifteen months. Further, 

he did not express disagreement with counsel’s request for a prison sentence at the time 

the request was made to the court. 

{¶15} Appellant has not demonstrated had counsel argued for a community 

control sanction, the request would have been granted. The court noted Appellant’s 

lengthy criminal history, particularly of “assaultive-type violent crime.” Tr. 41. The record 
«Court» County, Case No. «Case_No» 7

is replete with references to Appellant’s desire to be sentenced to prison rather than 

community control on the underlying case, and he demonstrated an intention to not 

comply with the terms of community control nearly from the beginning of his sentence in 

April of 2017. In fact, when asked if he had the opportunity to work with Appellant, his 

probation officer Dan Myers testified, “I had an opportunity for him to be on my case load. 

I wouldn’t characterize it as being working with him.” Tr. 6-7. We find counsel was not 

ineffective in failing to seek a further community control sanction, and instead attempting 

to mitigate the length of the prison sentence imposed in this case. 

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

{¶17} The judgment of the Richland County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, P.J. 

Baldwin, J. and 

Wise, Earle, J. concur 
«Court» County, Case No. «Case_No» 8