Court Opinion

ID: 9387364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-17 18:06:21.559444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.351882
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Everett, 2023-Ohio-1243.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                                CASE NO. 3-22-27

        v.

ROBERT R. EVERETT,                                         OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 21-CR-0354

                                       Judgment Affirmed

                              Date of Decision: April 17, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Howard A. Elliott for Appellant

        Bailey Higgins for Appellee
Case No. 3-22-27

MILLER, P.J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Robert R. Everett, appeals the June 8, 2022

judgment of sentence of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas. For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.

                           Facts & Procedural History

       {¶2} On October 12, 2021, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted Everett

on a single count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A),

(C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree felony.   On October 14, 2021, Everett appeared for

arraignment and pleaded not guilty to the count in the indictment.

       {¶3} A change-of-plea hearing was held on December 9, 2021, at which

Everett withdrew his previous not-guilty plea and entered a guilty plea to the count

in the indictment. The trial court accepted Everett’s guilty plea and found him

guilty. The trial court proceeded immediately to sentencing where it imposed a

jointly-recommended sentence of five years of community control with the special

condition that Everett immediately complete a drug and alcohol assessment and

complete an alcohol and drug treatment program. The trial court informed Everett

that, in the event he fails to successfully complete community control, he was

subject to up to 12 months in prison.

       {¶4} On December 13, 2021, Everett failed to report to his scheduled

appointment with his supervising probation officer and a warrant was subsequently

                                        -2-
Case No. 3-22-27

issued for Everett’s arrest. On March 21, 2022, Everett was arrested on the warrant

and a motion was filed requesting the trial court issue an order requiring Everett to

show cause why his community control should not be revoked. Specifically, the

motion alleged that Everett violated the terms of his community control by failing

to appear for the December 13, 2021 scheduled office visit with his probation officer

and by leaving the state without the written permission of his supervising probation

officer. At an initial appearance held later that day, Everett entered a denial to the

probation violation.

       {¶5} The following day, another show-cause motion was filed alleging that

after his arrest on March 21, 2022, Everett refused to provide a urine sample for a

drug screen as ordered by his supervising probation officer.

       {¶6} On June 8, 2022, Everett entered admissions acknowledging the

violations of his community control as outlined in the March 21 and March 22, 2022

filings. The trial court accepted Everett’s admission and found him to have violated

his community control. With respect to sentencing, the parties did not agree whether

the violations were technical or nontechnical, and each party argued their respective

positions.   The trial court determined that the violations were nontechnical

violations of Everett’s community control and sentenced him to eight months in

prison. The trial court filed its judgment entry of sentencing on June 8, 2022.

                                         -3-
Case No. 3-22-27

       {¶7} On July 6, 2022, Everett filed a notice of appeal. He raises the

following assignment of error for our review:

                                Assignment of Error

       In as much as the community control violation of the
       Appellant/Defendant is triggered upon him having relocated
       himself to a different [state] while on community control, as such,
       it was a condition tailored to facilitate the stated requirements of
       community control supervision and not a criminal act as such he
       would have been guilty of a technical violation of his community
       control conditions for which the punishment is limited by Ohio
       Revised Code § 2929.15(B); that of ninety (90) days of
       incarceration and the trial court’s imposition of a longer term of
       incarceration was contrary to law requiring the matter to be
       reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

       {¶8} In his assignment of error, Everett contends the trial court erred by

finding his community-control violations were nontechnical. Specifically, Everett

argues that his violations are technical violations, which subjects the trial court to a

sentencing cap for a fifth-degree felony under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i), thereby

rendering his sentence of eight months in prison contrary to law.

                                   Applicable Law

       {¶9} R.C. 2929.15(B) governs the penalties available to a sentencing court

when an offender violates community control. In 2017, the General Assembly

amended R.C. 2929.15(B) to place limitations on prison terms imposed for

violations of a community-control sanction for certain fourth- or fifth-degree

felonies. See 2017 H.B. 49. R.C. 2929.15(B) provides, in pertinent part:

                                          -4-
Case No. 3-22-27

      (B)(1) [I]f the conditions of a community control sanction are violated
      or if the offender violates a law or leaves the state without the
      permission of the court or the offender’s probation officer, the
      sentencing court may impose on the violator one or more of the
      following penalties:

      ***

      (c) A prison term on the offender pursuant to section 2929.14 of the
      Revised Code and division (B)(3) of this section, provided that a
      prison term imposed under this division is subject to the following
      limitations and rules, as applicable:

      (i) If the prison term is imposed for any technical violation of the
      conditions of a community control sanction imposed for a felony of
      the fifth degree, the prison term shall not exceed ninety days[.]

      {¶10} Thus, a prison term imposed pursuant to a technical violation of the

conditions of a community-control sanction is contrary to law if it exceeds the

applicable statutory limitations established in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c).     State v.

Whitaker, 6th Dist. Wood Nos. WD-19-038, WD-19-039, and WD-19-040, 2020-

Ohio-4249, ¶ 12.

      {¶11} In State v. Nelson, 2020-Ohio-3690, the Supreme Court of Ohio held

      a violation is “nontechnical” if, considering the totality of the
      circumstances, the violation concerns a condition of community
      control that was “specifically tailored to address” matters related to
      the defendant’s misconduct or if it can be deemed a “substantive
      rehabilitation requirement which addressed a significant factor
      contributing to” the defendant’s misconduct.

Id. at ¶ 26 quoting State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2017-11-156, 2018-

Ohio-2672, ¶ 17, 18. In contrast, “a violation is ‘technical’ when the condition

                                        -5-
Case No. 3-22-27

violated is akin to ‘an administrative requirement facilitating community control

supervision.’” Id., quoting Davis at ¶ 18. “There is no single factor that determines

whether a violation is technical or nontechnical.” Id. “[T]he statute allows the trial

court to engage in a practical assessment of the case before it, i.e., to consider the

nature of the community-control condition at issue and the manner in which it was

violated, as well as any other relevant circumstances in the case.” Id. As the

Supreme Court noted, “a trial court may find a violation to be more serious—and

therefore nontechnical—based in part on the manner in which the violation of the

community-control condition occurred; it is not constrained to reviewing only the

nature of the condition itself.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 23.

       {¶12} Following Nelson, the General Assembly amended R.C. 2929.15 (on

April 12, 2021) to define a “technical violation” under the statute. See 2020 H.B.

1. Nevertheless, the holding in Nelson remains instructive. State v. Crose, 3d Dist.

Crawford No. 3-22-34, 2023-Ohio-880, ¶ 12. R.C. 2929.15(E), as amended, defines

a “technical violation” as:

       a violation of the conditions of a community control sanction imposed
       for a felony of the fifth degree, or for a felony of the fourth degree that
       is not an offense of violence and is not a sexually oriented offense,
       and to which neither of the following applies:

       (1) The violation consists of a new criminal offense that is a felony
       or that is a misdemeanor other than a minor misdemeanor, and the
       violation is committed while under the community control sanction.

                                          -6-
Case No. 3-22-27

       (2) The violation consists of or includes the offender’s articulated or
       demonstrated refusal to participate in the community control sanction
       imposed on the offender or any of its conditions, and the refusal
       demonstrates to the court that the offender has abandoned the objects
       of the community control sanction or condition.

R.C. 2929.15(E)(1)-(2).

                                      Analysis

       {¶13} A review of the record indicates that on December 12, 2021, Everett

sent an email to his supervising probation officer requesting permission to travel to

his father’s residence in Lansing, Michigan. Before receiving a response, Everett

left the State of Ohio, thereby violating the terms of his community control. On

December 13, 2021, he failed to appear for a scheduled office visit with his

supervising probation officer, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Everett did

not communicate with his probation officer for 98 days, and at that time, his

probation officer did not know Everett’s whereabouts. On March 21, 2022, Everett

was arrested in Ohio on the outstanding warrant. However, when Everett made

contact with his probation officer following his arrest, Everett refused to provide a

urine sample for a drug screen.

       {¶14} Everett and his trial counsel argued that Everett traveled to Michigan

because his home in Ohio was without heat and electricity, and he felt that his only

option was to travel to his father’s residence in Michigan. Additionally, Everett

claimed he was assisting in caring for his father’s medical needs.

                                         -7-
Case No. 3-22-27

       {¶15} After considering the parties’ arguments in great detail, the trial court

determined that Everett’s community-control violations were nontechnical. The

trial court reasoned that Everett was only on community control for two weeks when

he absconded for 98 days. Moreover, Everett did not turn himself in or make contact

with his probation officer when he returned to Ohio. Rather, his first contact with

his probation officer was subsequent to his arrest on the outstanding warrant. The

trial court also noted that Everett had a previous drug-related offense in Michigan,

and accordingly, the court was concerned that Everett’s out-of-state travel was, at

least in part, motivated by his drug-related contacts in Michigan. The trial court

indicated that Everett’s refusal to complete the requested drug screen did nothing to

assuage these concerns.

       {¶16} After reviewing the record and relevant case law, we do not find the

trial court abused its discretion by classifying Everett’s community-control

violation as nontechnical.    The overall pattern of Everett’s behavior and the

cumulative effect of the violations demonstrated a failure to participate in his

community-control sanction as a whole. See Crose, 2023-Ohio-880, at ¶ 13-14

(Crose’s failure to contact her probation officer for three weeks upon her release

“was a failure to make herself available for supervision entirely” and was a

nontechnical violation of her community-control sanctions); State v. Sanchez

Martinez, 1st Dist. Hamilton C-180580, 2019-Ohio-3350, ¶ 11 (Sanchez Martinez’s

                                         -8-
Case No. 3-22-27

community-control violation was nontechnical where he failed to notify his

supervising officer of his new address, failed to report to the probation department

on two occasions, and was charged with four misdemeanor offenses); State v. Smith,

12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2020-08-044, 2021-Ohio-630, ¶ 24-25 (holding that

Smith’s failure to report to his supervising officer for almost two months constituted

a nontechnical violation of his community control). Accordingly, we find the 90-

day prison term limitation of R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) was inapplicable.

       {¶17} Everett’s assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶18} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Crawford County

Court of Common Pleas.

                                                                 Judgment Affirmed

ZIMMERMAN and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.

/jlr

                                         -9-