Court Opinion

ID: 9375899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 14:06:40.274307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:02.648712
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Stewart, 2023-Ohio-542.]

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                  FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                       HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 STATE OF OHIO,                              :   APPEAL NO. C-220300
                                                 TRIAL NO. B-2104965
          Plaintiff-Appellee,                :

                                             :
    VS.                                            O P I N I O N.
                                             :

 ADAM STEWART,                               :

       Defendant-Appellant.                  :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 24, 2023

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Bryan R. Perkins, for Defendant-Appellant.
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BERGERON, Judge.

       {¶1}   After he pleaded guilty to six counts of pandering sexually-oriented

matter involving a minor or impaired person, the trial court placed defendant-

appellant Adam Stewart on community control. Later, having found that Mr. Stewart

violated the terms of his community control, the trial court imposed an aggregate

prison sentence of 18 months. Mr. Stewart raises two assignments of error challenging

the trial court’s revocation of community control and imposition of a prison sentence.

However, based on the record before us, we find no error in the trial court’s decision

and we accordingly affirm its judgment.

                                           I.

       {¶2}   Mr. Stewart was indicted for 15 counts of pandering sexually-oriented

matter involving a minor or impaired person in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5), each

a felony of the fourth degree. In April 2022, Mr. Stewart entered guilty pleas to six of

the counts in exchange for dismissal of the remaining nine, and the trial court placed

him on community control. At that time, the trial court advised Mr. Stewart that, if he

violated the terms of his community control, he would be sentenced to 18 months in

prison. As part of his community control, Mr. Stewart was not permitted to “own,

possess, or access any sexual oriented erotica of any kind.”

       {¶3}   About two months later, the probation department filed a complaint

alleging that Mr. Stewart had violated the rules of community control by possessing

prohibited pornographic and/or nudity-oriented material. Specifically, the probation

department alleged to have found over 3,000 images of female children under the age

of 12, partly clothed or in sexual poses, in Mr. Stewart’s possession. In response to

that charge, the trial court convened a hearing at which Mr. Stewart entered a no

                                           2
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

contest plea to the violation. The trial court found him guilty of the alleged violation

and imposed an 18-month aggregate prison term. Mr. Stewart now appeals.

                                            II.

        {¶4}   In his first assignment of error, Mr. Stewart alleges that the trial court

erred by accepting his plea of no contest, claiming that he did not knowingly,

voluntarily, and intelligently enter into the plea. According to Mr. Stewart, his mental

health problems created confusion about the nature of the allegations and his

culpability in possessing the prohibited material.

        {¶5}   “A sentencing court has discretion in deciding whether to revoke

community control once a community-control violation has occurred.” State v. Rudin,

1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110747, 2012-Ohio-2643, ¶ 8, quoting R.C. 2929.15(B)(1).

And we review these decisions for an abuse of discretion. Rudin at ¶ 8, citing State v.

Dockery, 187 Ohio App.3d 798, 2010-Ohio-2365, 933 N.E.2d 1155, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.). We

will thus not reverse the trial court’s judgment unless the court has exercised its

discretionary judgment over the matter in an unwarranted way or committed legal

error. See Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427, 2021-Ohio-3304, 187 N.E.3d 463,

¶ 35.

        {¶6}   Mr. Stewart posits that the state of the record before the trial court casts

serious doubt on whether his no contest plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and

intelligently. Therefore, according to Mr. Stewart, an evidentiary hearing should have

been held to satisfy due process requirements. In support of this claim, Mr. Stewart

points to his mental health issues (including anxiety, depression, a learning disability,

post-traumatic stress disorder, agoraphobia, and having been involved in a car

accident that worsened his mental health), and also the fact that he appeared a bit

                                            3
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

confused by some of the questions posed to him by the court during his hearing and

denied some of the allegations made against him.

       {¶7}    Mr. Stewart is correct that minimum requirements of due process apply

to community control revocation hearings. State v. King, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-

010330, 2002-Ohio-373, ¶ 8. However, due process does not require a Crim.R. 11

colloquy for no contest pleas to violations of community control. State v. Alexander,

1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-070021, 2007-Ohio-5457, ¶ 7. Rather, Crim.R. 32.3(A)

governs revocation hearings, and requires only that the court “hold a hearing at which

the defendant is present and apprised of the grounds for the violation.” Id. at ¶ 8. The

revocation hearing is an informal proceeding “ ‘structured to assure that the finding of

a * * * violation will be based on verified facts and that the exercise of discretion will

be informed by an accurate knowledge of the [defendant’s] behavior.’ ” Id. at ¶ 7,

quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.E.2d 484 (1972).

       {¶8}    Here, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s acceptance of

Mr. Stewart’s no contest plea. The trial court conducted a full hearing on the violation,

at which Mr. Stewart was present and informed of the grounds for his violation. Mr.

Stewart signed the community control rules that unambiguously indicated that he was

not to “own, possess, or access any sexual oriented erotica of any kind.” And at the

revocation hearing, Mr. Stewart acknowledged that he understood that he was not to

possess pornographic material of any kind.

       {¶9}    Moreover, at the hearing, it was not disputed that Mr. Stewart’s tablet

contained more than 3,000 images of young girls and women, which were downloaded

throughout the month of May 2022. Although not all of the images found on the tablet

violated the terms of his community control, it was undisputed that at the very least

                                            4
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

three of those images—identified by defense counsel at the hearing—involved nudity.

Therefore, at least some of the images contained on Mr. Stewart’s tablet violated the

terms of his community control.

       {¶10} And while Mr. Stewart attempts to minimize his conduct at the hearing

by suggesting that he was unaware that some of the pictures portrayed girls under the

age of 18 and that he did not know how some of the images ended up on his tablet, his

rationalizations did not constitute a denial of the core allegation that he possessed

material that his community control obligations proscribed.             These attempts at

explaining his conduct do not undermine the voluntariness of his plea. At his hearing,

the trial court questioned Mr. Stewart at length to ensure that he acknowledged the

wrongfulness of his conduct and that he was entering into the plea knowingly and

voluntarily, and the trial court was informed of his cognitive state.

       {¶11} In light of the foregoing, we cannot say that the trial court abused its

discretion in deciding to accept Mr. Stewart’s no contest plea and revoke community

control after he violated the terms of his community control. Nor do we find any denial

of Mr. Stewart’s due process rights. Accordingly, we overrule Mr. Stewart’s first

assignment of error.

                                          III.

       {¶12} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Stewart disputes the sufficiency

of the basis for finding him guilty of violating the terms of his community control. At

his community control revocation hearing, despite his no contest plea, Mr. Stewart

contested the nature of the images and asserted that many of the photos were of adults,

clothed children, or were not of a sexual nature. He also denied before the trial court

that he knowingly downloaded some of the images.

                                           5
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶13} However, “ ‘[a] community-control-revocation hearing is not a criminal

trial, and the state is not required to establish a violation of the terms of community

control beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Day, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210503,

2022-Ohio-1954, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Richardson, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-200288

and C-200289, 2021-Ohio-3362, ¶ 22. The state need only present “substantial”

evidence to establish a violation. Id. And again, we will not disturb a trial court’s

decision revoking community control absent an abuse of discretion. Rudin, 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-110747, 2012-Ohio-2643, at ¶ 8, citing Dockery, 187 Ohio App.3d 798,

2010-Ohio-2365, 933 N.E.2d 1155, at ¶ 13.

       {¶14} Here, Mr. Stewart pleaded no contest to a violation report alleging that

he was in possession of thousands of pornographic and/or nudity-oriented images, in

patent violation of the terms of his community control. His tablet also contained

searches for pornographic images and images of children, and showed that he

subscribed to a membership platform that provided images of minors in sexually

suggestive poses. On the record at hand, substantial evidence existed to establish that

Mr. Stewart was guilty of violating the terms of his community control.

       {¶15} Therefore, Mr. Stewart has failed to demonstrate that the trial court

abused its discretion when it determined that he violated the terms of his community

control, and we overrule his second assignment of error.

                                   *      *       *

       {¶16} In light of the foregoing analysis, we overrule both of Mr. Stewart’s

assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                   Judgment affirmed.

                                          6
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ZAYAS, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.

Please note:

       The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                           7