Court Opinion

ID: 9378776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 16:16:02.890867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:57.103344
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Wallace, 2023-Ohio-676.]

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                              CRAWFORD COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                               CASE NO. 3-22-40

        v.

PATRICK WALLACE,                                          OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 20-CR-0407

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                              Date of Decision: March 6, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Howard A. Elliott for Appellant
Case No. 3-22-40

ZIMMERMAN, J.

      {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Patrick Wallace, (“Wallace”) appeals the

August 30, 2022 judgment entry of the Crawford County Common Pleas Court,

General Division, revoking his community control and imposing a 9-month prison

term. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

      {¶2} This case stems from Wallace’s travel from Franklin County to

Crawford County to allegedly engage in sexual conduct (by force or threat of force)

with a juvenile after he admittedly provided her with marijuana.

      {¶3} On November 10, 2020, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted

Wallace on two criminal counts:         Count One, Rape in violation of R.C.

2907.02(A)(2), (B), a first-degree felony and Count Two, Corrupting another with

drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.02(A)(4)(a), (C)(3), a fourth-degree felony. Wallace

appeared for arraignment on November 16, 2020 and entered pleas of not guilty.

      {¶4} On January 13, 2021, Wallace entered a guilty plea to Count Two (the

Corrupting-another-with-drugs charge) in exchange for a dismissal of Count One

(the Rape charge) pursuant to a negotiated-plea agreement.           Importantly, the

negotiated-plea    agreement   contained      a   joint-sentencing   recommendation.

Specifically, Wallace and the State agreed to recommend to the trial court a five-

year term of community control that included basic supervision by the Crawford

County Probation Department. Thereafter, the trial court held a sentencing hearing

                                        -2-
Case No. 3-22-40

wherein the parties’ joint-sentencing recommendation was followed in its entirety.

Further, the trial judge reserved an 18-month prison term on Count Two and ordered

a post-sentence investigation.1 (See Jan. 13, 2021 Tr. at 10).

         {¶5} On March 18, 2021, the trial court issued an order suspending

Wallace’s community control because he had not complied with the rules and

regulations of supervision. Wallace was apprehended on that bench warrant on June

20, 2022.

         {¶6} On June 21, 2022, Wallace’s probation officer filed a notice of

violation in the trial court seeking to revoke Wallace’s community control due to

violation of several rules including that his whereabouts were unknown; that he

failed to complete the post-sentence investigation and respond to attempts to contact

him via telephone, and that he had a positive urine screen for THC and for EtG

(alcohol). That same day, Wallace’s probation officer provided him with a copy of

that notice by personal service. Thereafter, Wallace appeared personally (with

counsel) in the trial court at his preliminary-revocation hearing, and the matter was

scheduled for a final-revocation hearing.

1
  At the time of his change-of-plea hearing, the State acknowledged that Wallace was a Franklin-County
resident. (Jan. 13, 2021 Tr. at 8). Thus, it is evident to us the parties agreed to waive completion of a
presentence-investigation report since the trial court proceeded immediately to a sentencing hearing with the
intent to transfer his supervision to Franklin County. The propriety of the trial court sentencing Wallace to
community control without a presentence investigation report is not before us in this appeal. See Crim.R.
32.2; R.C. 2951.03(A)(1).

                                                    -3-
Case No. 3-22-40

       {¶7} On August 29, 2022, the trial court held a community-control-

revocation hearing, and found that Wallace violated community control. Thereafter,

the trial court revoked Wallace’s community control and sentenced him to a 9-

month prison term.

       {¶8} Wallace timely appeals and raises two assignments of error for our

review that we will review separately.

                               Assignment of Error I

       The finding by the Trial Court of a community control violation
       herein because of the Defendant-Appellant’s failure to maintain
       contact with the Community Control Department, is against the
       manifest weight of the evidence inasmuch as no specific timetable
       for reporting was set by the Community Control supervisor who
       had advised the Defendant-Appellant that he would get back with
       him; as such, the conviction for this alleged community control
       violation must be reversed and set aside.

       {¶9} In his first assignment of error, Wallace argues that the trial court

erred by finding that Wallace violated his community control. Specifically, Wallace

asserts that the record does not support the trial court’s determination that he failed

to maintain contact with his probation officer, Eric Bohach (“Bohach”).

       {¶10} Initially, we note that the State failed to file a brief in the instant case.

The Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure state in pertinent part that:

       [i]f an appellee fails to file the appellee’s brief within the time
       provided by this rule, or within the time as extended, the appellee will
       not be heard at oral argument * * * and in determining the appeal, the
       court may accept the appellant’s statement of the facts and issues as

                                           -4-
Case No. 3-22-40

       correct and reverse the judgment if appellant’s brief reasonably
       appears to sustain such action.

App.R. 18(C). See also State v. Lewis, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-16-13, 2017-Ohio-

996, ¶ 7; State v. Montgomery, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-11, 2014-Ohio-1789, ¶

9; State v. Young, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-03-52, 2004-Ohio-540, ¶ 4. However,

upon our review of the record, we find that the appellant’s brief does not reasonably

appear to sustain a reversal of the trial court’s judgment. Thus, we will examine

appellant’s assignments of error.

                                Standard of Review

       {¶11} The decision of a trial court finding a community-control violation

will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. McKeithen, 3d Dist.

Marion No. 9-08-29, 2009-Ohio-84, ¶ 7, citing State v. Ryan, 3d Dist. Auglaize No.

14-06-55, 2007-Ohio-4743, ¶ 7; State v. Espinoza, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-21-48,

2022-Ohio-1807, ¶ 17.      An abuse of discretion suggests that a decision is

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157-

158 (1980).

                                      Analysis

       {¶12} “Because a community control violation hearing is not a criminal trial,

the State need not prove a violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Roberts,

2d Dist. Champaign No. 2016-CA-8, 2017-Ohio-481, ¶ 20. Rather, “the State must

show substantial evidence that the offender violated the terms of his community-

                                         -5-
Case No. 3-22-40

control sanctions at a community-control-revocation hearing.” State v. Boykins, 3d

Dist. Marion No. 9-14-28, 2015-Ohio-1341, ¶ 20.

       ‘Substantial evidence is akin to a preponderance-of-the-evidence
       burden of proof.’ State v. Burdette, 5th Dist. Morrow No. 10-CA-9,
       2011-Ohio-4425, *4 * * *. ‘Substantial evidence is considered to
       consist of more than a mere scintilla of evidence, but somewhat less
       than a preponderance.’ Id. * * *.

(Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 21.

       {¶13} Relevant to this discussion, the trial court found that Wallace violated

Crawford County condition number five

       ‘I will follow all orders verbal or written given to me by my
       supervising officer or other authorized representatives of the
       Court or the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.’ To
       Wit:

       As of 3/18/2021 [Wallace’s] whereabouts [were] unknown and a
       warrant was issued.

(Doc. No. 23).

       {¶14} On appeal, Wallace argues that the evidence does not support his

violation of condition number five regarding his whereabouts being unknown since

at all times relevant his Probation Officer (Bohach) knew his address and failed to

go to that address to locate him. Moreover, he argues that he could not be in

violation of condition number five since Bohach told Wallace he would contact him

by telephone at a later date.

                                        -6-
Case No. 3-22-40

       {¶15} Wallace argues that it was the responsibility of the Crawford County

Probation Department to take steps to seek him out, in addition to the failed attempts

to reach him by telephone at the numbers that he (Wallace) previously provided for

such a purpose. On the contrary, to us, what Wallace is really arguing relates to an

issue of witness credibility since Bohach testified that Wallace did not make contact

with him until he (Wallace) became aware that a bench warrant had been issued for

his arrest some 15 months after sentencing, and Wallace testified that he attempted

to contact Bohach once a month since the court hearing to no avail.               “At a

community-control-revocation hearing the trial court, being in the better position to

observe the witnesses and hear their testimony, is entitled to deference on issues of

witness credibility and weight of the evidence.” Boykins, 2015-Ohio-1341, at ¶ 27.

Here, the trial court was in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses

and the trial court chose to believe Bohach instead of Wallace. Accord id. See also

State v. Scheck, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-08-20, 2008-Ohio-5314, ¶ 22.

       {¶16} Moreover, in our view, Wallace attempts to alleviate his responsibility

to remain in contact with Bohach, by shifting the blame to Bohach. Importantly,

Wallace’s failure to remain in contact with Bohach not only thwarted efforts to

supervise him, but also frustrated Wallace’s own self-serving request to transfer his

community-control supervision to Franklin County and resulted in the trial court’s

finding that Wallace had absconded. Consequently, Wallace failed to make himself

                                          -7-
Case No. 3-22-40

available to any of Bohach’s supervision efforts for almost 15 months. To us,

Wallace’s lack of compliance supports the trial court’s determination that he had

absconded, a non-technical violation of his community-control sanctions.

       {¶17} Accordingly, based on the evidence presented, we conclude that there

was substantial evidence presented that Wallace violated the terms and conditions

of his community-control sanctions. See Boykins, 2015-Ohio-1341, at ¶ 20.

       {¶18} Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding

that Wallace violated the terms and conditions of his community-control sanctions.

       {¶19} Accordingly, Wallace’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                             Assignment of Error II

       The nine month sentence for the community control violation
       herein, in light of the proper conviction on the allegation of failure
       to report by the Defendant-Appellant, is in excess of what is
       permitted by law inasmuch as the Defendant-Appellant admitted
       to having committed two technical violations of community
       control, that of consumption of alcohol and consumption of
       marijuana, each subject to a maximum ninety day term of
       imprisonment, and accordingly, the sentence herein must be
       vacated and remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings.

       {¶20} In his second assignment of error, Wallace argues that the trial court

erred by sentencing him to 9-month prison term for a technical violation of his

community-control orders. However, based upon our finding in appellant’s first

assignment of error that the trial court’s revocation was based upon a non-technical

                                        -8-
Case No. 3-22-40

violation (i.e., absconding), the assignment of error is rendered moot. See App.R.

12(A)(1)(c).

       {¶21} Accordingly, Wallace’s second assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶22} Having found no error prejudicial to Wallace in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas

is affirmed.

                                                              Judgment Affirmed

MILLER, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.

/jlr

                                       -9-