Court Opinion

ID: 9400305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 19:10:17.800547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:43.415332
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Acker, 2023-Ohio-1880.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                     ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 STATE OF OHIO                                  JUDGES:
                                                Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                     Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                                Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
 -vs-
                                                Case No. 22-COA-022
 PAIGE ACKER

          Defendant-Appellant                   OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                      Appeal from the Ashland County Court of
                                                Common Pleas, Case No. 19-CRI-027

 JUDGMENT:                                      Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                        June 6, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellee                         For Defendant-Appellant

 CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL, ESQ.                   BRIAN A. SMITH
 Ashland County Prosecuting Attorney            Brian A. Smith Law Firm, LLC
                                                123 South Miller Road – Suite #250
 NADINE HAUPTMAN, ESQ.                          Fairlawn, Ohio 44333
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
 110 Cottage Street – 3rd Floor
 Ashland, Ohio 44805
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-022                                                         2

Hoffman, J.
        {¶1}    Defendant-appellant Paige Acker appeals the judgment entered by the

Ashland County Common Pleas Court revoking her community control and imposing an

aggregate sentence of thirty months incarceration. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

                                STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

        {¶2}    On August 20, 2019, Appellant was placed on community control following

her convictions of complicity to aggravated trafficking in drugs, complicity to trafficking in

cocaine, and endangering children. On January 14, 2020, Appellant’s community control

was revoked because Appellant had contact with Trent Carey, in violation of the terms of

her community control. The trial court granted Appellant judicial release in November of

2020, and she was again placed on community control.

        {¶3}    When she was granted judicial release, Appellant’s supervising officer was

Paul Cieslinski of the Adult Parole Authority. Officer Cieslinski reviewed the terms of

supervision with Appellant, which included she not communicate with any prisoner without

the written permission of her supervising officer.

        {¶4}    In March of 2021, Officer Cieslinski learned Appellant was continuing to

have contact with Trent Carey, who was incarcerated. Officer Cieslinski spoke with

Appellant about these allegations. Appellant admitted she continued to have contact with

Carey. On March 29, 2021, Officer Cieslinski issued Appellant a written sanction which

required she not have any contact with Carey, and she not have contact with any inmate

in a prison or jail facility.

        {¶5}    In early 2022, while Carey was incarcerated in the Mansfield Correctional

Institution, prison officials began investigating Carey’s cellmate in conjunction with an

altercation which occurred in the prison. Christopher Hrytzik, an intelligence analyst for
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-022                                                    3

a company which provides telephone services to inmates in Ohio, began reviewing calls.

During the investigation, Hrytzik determined over 150 calls were placed from the prison

to a particular phone number during the early months of 2022. Using a reverse search

program, Hrytzik determined the number belonged to Appellant. While reviewing the

calls, Hrytzik became concerned for the wellbeing of Appellant and contacted Officer

Daubenspack, who was Appellant’s supervising officer through the Adult Parole Authority

at the time.

       {¶6}    After reviewing the phone calls, Daubenspack believed Appellant was

communicating with Trent Carey while he was incarcerated.          On March 25, 2022,

Daubenspack filed a complaint alleging Appellant violated the terms of her community

control by having contact with Carey from January, through March, of 2022.

       {¶7}    The complaint proceeded to an evidentiary hearing in the Ashland County

Common Pleas Court. Following the hearing, the trial court found Appellant had violated

the terms of her community control, and imposed the original aggregate sentence of thirty

months incarceration. It is from the June 23, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant

prosecutes her appeal, assigning as error:

               THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING

       APPELLANT       IN   VIOLATION    OF    HER    COMMUNITY        CONTROL

       CONDITIONS AND RE-IMPOSING A PRISON SENTENCE.
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-022                                                        4

       {¶8}   At the outset, the State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot

because Appellant has completed her prison sentence. Appellant argues the appeal is

not moot because there are collateral consequences associated with the finding she

violated the terms of community control. Appellant specifically argues pursuant to R.C.

2929.13(B)(1)(a)(ix), because she has now served a prison sentence, she would become

subject to a prison sentence for a future fourth of fifth degree felony offense which is not

an offense of violence or a qualifying assault offense.

       {¶9}   The Ohio Supreme Court has held a person convicted of a felony has a

substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the completion of the

sentence, and therefore an appeal challenging a felony conviction is not moot even if the

entire sentence has been satisfied before the matter is heard on appeal. State v. Golston,

71 Ohio St.3d 224, 224–25, 643 N.E.2d 109, 110 (1994), syllabus. We find the same

reasoning applies in the instant case. Appellant is challenging the underlying finding she

violated her community control, not merely the sentence imposed. If this Court concluded

the trial court erred in revoking her community control, she would potentially not be subject

to the collateral consequences which flow from the revocation of her community control,

separate and apart from the prison sentence which she has already served. The State’s

motion to dismiss is overruled.

                                                 I.

       {¶10} Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her

community control. Appellant argues the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate she

had contact by telephone with Trent Carey. Appellant argues the address associated

with the phone number called by Carey is not her address. She also argues there are
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-022                                                        5

alternative explanations for the phone calls, such as another inmate using the account

because inmates often trade PIN numbers, and Carey discussing the details of the

custody of their children with Appellant’s sister, who had custody of the children at the

time the calls were made.

      {¶11} A community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial; therefore, the

State is not required to establish a violation of the terms of community control “beyond a

reasonable doubt.” State v. Middlebrooks, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2010 AP 08 0026,

2011-Ohio-4534, ¶ 13. Instead, the State must show “substantial” proof the offender

violated the terms of his or her community control sanctions. Id. “Substantial evidence”

is akin to a preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof. Id. at ¶14. Once a trial court

finds a defendant violated the terms of a community control sanction, the trial court's

decision to revoke community control may be reversed on appeal only if the court abused

its discretion. State v. Shuman, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2009CA00271, 2010-Ohio-3957, ¶ 27,

citing Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio App.3d 26, 38, 601 N.E.2d 61 (1991). An abuse of

discretion connotes more than an error in law or judgment; it implies the court's attitude

is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 253,

473 N.E.2d 768 (1984).

      {¶12} In the instant case, Hrytzik testified at the evidentiary hearing while listening

to phone calls of Carey’s cellmate in conjunction into an investigation into an altercation

at the prison, he noted a voice which did not sound like Carey’s cellmate. He also noted

a specific cell phone number was called more than 150 times in the early months of 2022.

A reverse search revealed the number called from the prison belonged to Appellant.
Ashland County, Case No. 22-COA-022                                                         6

Hrytzik testified while reviewing the calls, he heard the inmate refer to the person he called

as “Paige,” and heard the woman identified as “Paige” refer to the caller as “Trent.”

       {¶13} Officer Daubenspack also reviewed the recorded calls. He was able to

identify Appellant’s voice on the recordings. Further, he determined the phone calls were

between Appellant and Carey based on use of names “Trent” and “Paige” to refer to each

during the phone calls, as well as discussion of children and a dog shared by Carey and

Appellant. We find there was substantial evidence Appellant violated the terms of her

community control by having contact with Carey while he was incarcerated at the

Mansfield Correctional Institution. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

revoking Appellant’s community control.

       {¶14} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Ashland County

Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
King, J. concur