Court Opinion

ID: 9912189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 19:08:54.559198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:37.288621
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Chambers, 2023-Ohio-4665.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                  TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                       JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO                                  :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
                                               :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
                         Plaintiff-Appellee    :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
                                               :
-vs-                                           :
                                               :       Case No. 2023 AP 05 0032
SARAH CHAMBERS                                 :
                                               :
                    Defendant-Appellant        :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                           Appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court
                                                   of Common Pleas, Case No. 2022 CR 09
                                                   0337

JUDGMENT:                                          Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                            December 21, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                             For Defendant-Appellant

KRISTINE W. BEARD                                  DAN GUINN
Assistant Prosecutor                               232 West 3rd Street, Ste 312
125 E. High Avenue                                 Dover, OH 44622
New Philadelphia, OH44663
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 05 0032                                                        2

Delaney, P.J.

      {¶1}      Defendant-appellant Sara Chambers [“Chambers”] appeals the imposition

of Community Control sanction conditions after a negotiated guilty plea in the Tuscarawas

County Court of Common Pleas.

                                      Facts and Procedural History

      {¶2}      On November 21, 2022, Chambers was indicted by the Tuscarawas

County grand jury for one count of Improperly Discharging a Firearm at or into a

Habitation or a School Safety Zone in violation of R.C. 2923.161(A)(1) a second-degree

felony, one count of Aggravated Menacing a violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) a first-degree

misdemeanor, and one count of Criminal Damaging or Endangering in violation of R.C.

2909.06(A)(1) a second-degree misdemeanor.

      {¶3}      On March 29, 2023, Chambers, through counsel, filed a written

Acknowledgement of Guilty Plea. Chambers pleaded guilty as charged in the indictment

and sentencing was deferred for the completion of a pre-sentence investigation. Judgment

Entry, Change of Plea, Mar 29, 2023.1

      {¶4}      On May 9, 2023, Chambers appeared for sentencing. At the sentencing

hearing, the state indicated that the victim was Chambers' friend who believed she was

suffering from mental health and substance abuse problems. The victim did not advocate

for the imposition of a term of incarceration. Both the state and the victim recommended

that Chambers be placed on community control. Sent. T. May 9, 2023 at 1-5. The defense

concurred with the state, and asked the trial court to suspend any prison commitment in

favor of community control sanctions. Id. at 6. Chambers addressed the court and stated

      1 A transcript of the change of plea hearing was not filed with the record in this appeal.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 05 0032                                            3

that community control would help her address her mental health and substance abuse

issues while allowing her to continue to provide care for her mother. Id. at 7.

       {¶5}   After hearing from the state and defense, the trial judge addressed

Chambers. The trial judge found that recidivism was more likely due to Chambers' prior

criminal history and substance abuse. Id. at 8. The judge noted that the PSI

recommended the imposition of a prison sentence. Id. at 12. However, the judge held that

the presumption for prison had been overcome and that community control would be the

appropriate way to address Chambers' mental health and substance abuse issues. Id. at

9.

       {¶6}   The trial judge ordered Chambers to serve three years of community control

sanctions and reserved a prison sentence of a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 8 years.

Id. at 13. As a condition of community control the judge ordered Chambers to successfully

complete the in-house program at the Eastern Ohio Correction Center [EOCC] where she

could address her mental health and substance abuse problems. Prior to the sentencing

EOCC had screened Chambers and found her to be an acceptable candidate. Id. at 9.

                                       Assignment of Error

       {¶7}   Chambers raises one Assignment of Error,

       {¶8}   “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPOSED A TERM IN THE

EASTERN OHIO CORRECTION CENTER WHEN A COMMUNITY CONTROL

SANCTION WAS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND PUNISH THE

APPELLANT.”
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 05 0032                                                4

                                        Law and Analysis

                                 Standard of Appellate Review

       {¶9}   R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) governs the authority of the trial court to impose

conditions of community control. We review the trial court’s imposition of community-

control sanctions under an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d

177, 2004-Ohio-4888, 814 N.E.2d 1201, ¶10. This means courts 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.” State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 53, 550 N.E.2d 469(1990) (citations

omitted).

       {¶10} The requirement that a condition may not be overbroad is connected to the

reasonableness of a condition.” State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177, 2004-Ohio-4888, 814

N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 14. The availability of “ready alternatives” is evidence that a condition is

unreasonable. Id. In short, “Jones stands for the proposition that probation conditions

must be reasonably related to the statutory ends of probation and must not be overbroad.

Because community control is the functional equivalent of probation, this proposition

applies with equal force to community-control sanctions.” Id. at ¶ 16.

       {¶11} An abuse of discretion can be found where the reasons given by the court

for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice, or

where the judgment reaches an end or purpose not justified by reason and the evidence.

Tennant v. Gallick, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26827, 2014-Ohio-477, ¶35; In re Guardianship
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 05 0032                                                5

of S.H., 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0066–M, 2013–Ohio–4380, ¶ 9; State v. Firouzmandi,

5th Dist. Licking No. 2006–CA–41, 2006–Ohio–5823, ¶54.

       Issue for Appellate Review: Whether the trial judge’s decision for Chambers to

   successfully complete the in-house program at EOCC as a condition of community

 control is clearly untenable, legally incorrect, amounts to a denial of justice, or reaches

               an end or purpose not justified by reason and the evidence

       {¶12} Terms of incarceration in a community-based correctional facility, a halfway

house, or a local jail are called “community residential sanctions,” and a court sentencing

for a felony is authorized to impose “a term of up to six months in a jail.” R.C. 2929.16(A).

Local probation, day reporting, house arrest, community service, and curfew are classified

as “nonresidential sanctions.” R.C. 2929.17 (“the court imposing a sentence for a felony

upon an offender who is not required to serve a mandatory prison term may impose any

nonresidential sanction or combination of nonresidential sanctions”). Restitution, fines,

and costs are “financial sanctions.” R.C. 2929.18(A). In short, the statutes authorize a

broad variety of community-control sanctions, and trial courts are empowered to “impose

any other conditions of release under a community control sanction that the court

considers appropriate * * *.” R.C. 2929.15(A)(1). State v. Amos, 140 Ohio St.3d 238,

2014-Ohio-3160, 17 N.E.3d 528, ¶11. The statute makes clear the legislature intended

trial courts should have discretion to fashion community-control sentences that punish

and protect but do not unnecessarily waste scarce resources. Id. at ¶ 12.

           The Jones requirements for community control sanction conditions

               (1) Is the condition reasonably related to rehabilitating Chambers
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 05 0032                                                 6

       {¶13} Chambers pled guilty to a felony of the second degree. Sent. T. May 9, 2023

at 8. R.C. 2929.13(D)(1) applies to one convicted of a felony of the first or second degree.

The statute provides that when sentencing for a first or second-degree felony “it is

presumed that a prison sentence is necessary in order to comply with the purposes and

principles   of    sentencing.”    Nonetheless,    R.C.     2929.13(D)(2)   provides    that

“[n]otwithstanding the presumption * * * the sentencing court may impose a community

control sanction,” but only if the sentencing court finds that a community control sanction

would (1) adequately punish the offender and protect the public from future crime, and (2)

not demean the seriousness of the offense because the statutory less serious sentencing

factors outweigh the more serious factors.

       {¶14} In the case at bar, after weighing the factors in R.C. 2929.13(D) the trial

judge specifically found,

              I think there is a reoccurring pattern here that it would appear as if,

       while you could be sent to prison, the resources of the State of Ohio would

       be better used by putting you on Community Control… and I believe that in

       this case a residential sanction is appropriate….

Id. at 9. The victim, the state and Chambers each advocated for community control to

address Chambers’ drug use and mental health issues. Id. at 3; 8. Thus, completion of

an inpatient drug rehabilitation requirement reasonably relates to rehabilitating

Chambers.

                  (2) Does the condition have some relationship to the crime of which the

                                   offender was convicted
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 05 0032                                             7

       {¶15} Chambers’ drug use and mental health issues contributed to the crimes to

which she pled guilty. Chambers went to the home of her friend with a loaded handgun

and threatened to do harm to herself. Sent. T. May 9, 2023 at 3. She discharged the gun

in the home more than once. Id. The victim indicated that he was concerned about her

drug use and her mental health. Id. He believed that she was intoxicated at the time of

the incident.

       {¶16} Accordingly, the imposition of an inpatient drug rehabilitation has some

relationship to the crimes to which Chambers pled guilty.

       (3) Does the condition relate to conduct which is criminal or reasonably related to

           future criminality and serve the statutory ends of community control

       {¶17} The conditions relate to future criminality and serve the statutory ends of

community control since they will ensure that Chambers will address her substance abuse

and mental health concerns, concerns that played a large part in the crimes to which she

pled guilty.

                                          Conclusion

       {¶18} The record supports that the sentence meets the Jones elements. EOCC

was a reasonable alternative to imprisonment under the circumstances of the case at bar.

The trial judge formulated a sentence that would allow Chambers to receive the

counseling that she needs to assist her with making reasonable decisions to avoid

substance abuse while also complying with her mental health treatment. A more

restrictive environment is called for based upon Chambers’ past attempts at treatment.

Sent. T. May 9, 2023 at 8.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2023 AP 05 0032                                     8

      {¶19} Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in setting the

conditions of Chambers’ community control.

      {¶20} Accordingly, Chambers’ sole assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶21} The judgment of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas is

affirmed.

By Delaney, P.J.,

Baldwin, J., and

King, J., concur