Court Opinion

ID: 9961653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 14:11:09.568015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:19.607692
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Thomas, 2024-Ohio-1499.]

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                  SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     MONTGOMERY COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO                                     :
                                                   :
       Appellee                                    :   C.A. No. 29884
                                                   :
 v.                                                :   Trial Court Case No. 2019 CR 02932
                                                   :
 BRAD THOMAS                                       :   (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
                                                   :   Court)
       Appellant                                   :
                                                   :

                                              ...........

                                              OPINION

                                       Rendered on April 19, 2024

                                              ...........

ROBERT L. SCOTT, Attorney for Appellant

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by SARAH H. CHANEY, Attorney for Appellee

                                             .............

HUFFMAN, J.

        {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Brad Thomas appeals from the trial court’s judgment

revoking his community control sanctions and sentencing him to prison. For the reasons

outlined below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                              I.       Factual and Procedural Background

        {¶ 2} In October 2019, Thomas was indicted on one count of burglary, a felony of
                                                                                        -2-

the second degree; he pled guilty on January 27, 2020. During his plea hearing, the trial

court conducted the required Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy. It advised Thomas that he was

eligible for community control sanctions, but that if he violated any of the sanctions, he

could be sent to prison for eight to twelve years. Thomas verbalized his understanding.

       {¶ 3} In August 2020, Thomas was sentenced to community control sanctions with

the following conditions: that he comply with the general conditions of the court for

probation assuring intensive probation supervision for a period not to exceed five years,

which included reporting to his probation officer as ordered; that he not have contact with

the victim; that he pay restitution; that he receive a substance abuse assessment with

Nova Behavioral Health and complete treatment as recommended; that he establish

contact with Miami Valley Works Program and comply with any recommendations made

by that agency; that he provide verification of suitable residence or involvement with a

recognized homeless shelter within 14 days of disposition; that he not be in any place

where he knew or had reason to know that illegal drugs, stolen property, or firearms were

present; and that he abstain from the use of illegal drugs, drugs of abuse, and alcohol.

The trial court further advised Thomas, both orally and in the judgment entry, that, if he

violated any condition of his community control sanctions, violated any law, or left the

state without permission, the court had the option to impose a longer time under the same

sanction, impose a more restrictive sanction, or impose a prison term of eight to twelve

years in prison.

       {¶ 4} In November 2020, Thomas absconded, eventually returned, and entered

Woodhaven, an addiction treatment center. Upon completion of treatment, Thomas failed
                                                                                       -3-

to report to his probation officer and was arrested again in early 2022 on an absconding

warrant. In April 2022, he was reinstated to community control and was ordered to

complete the Decision Points intervention program. The court’s reinstatement entry

provided that “[a]ll other sanctions and Court-ordered financial obligations previously

ordered on 11/18/2019, and any subsequent added sanctions, and the alternative

sentence of 8 to 12 years CRC (Reagan Tokes Act) are hereby re-imposed and remain

in full force and effect.”

       {¶ 5} In July 2022, Thomas absconded from community control sanctions again.

On July 5, 2023, Thomas was arrested.         He was subsequently given a notice of

community control sanctions revocation hearing. It notified him that he had a legal right

to a probable cause hearing regarding the allegations set forth in the notice, that he may

waive the right, if desired, that he had the right to present witnesses and evidence

favorable to his defense, as well as the right to disclosure of evidence, that he had the

right to confront adverse witnesses, unless they would be subjected to a risk of harm, and

that he had the right to be represented by counsel of choice or to have counsel appointed

if he was indigent.

       {¶ 6} On July 13, 2023, the trial court conducted the initial probation revocation

hearing, at which Thomas appeared with his counsel. At sidebar during the hearing, the

trial court advised Thomas’s counsel that a term of incarceration for Thomas had been

recommended by probation staff but that certain assessments could be completed before

sentencing. On behalf of Thomas, and in his presence, Thomas’s counsel waived the first

reading of the probation revocation and any defects in service, and Thomas immediately
                                                                                         -4-

thereafter admitted that he had violated the terms and conditions of his community control

sanctions by absconding a second time. The trial court accepted Thomas’s admission,

finding that it was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, ordered a substance

abuse and mental health assessment, and scheduled the revocation disposition hearing

for July 27, 2023.

       {¶ 7} At the disposition hearing, Thomas requested drug and mental health

treatment, alleging that his cocaine use persisted. He stated that he had probation officers

in multiple counties and had been overwhelmed by his reporting requirements. However,

given Thomas’s history of absconding despite having undergone previous drug addiction

treatment and remaining under community control sanctions, the trial court concluded that

Thomas was making excuses, and it did not believe he would comply with supervision or

treatment.   Accordingly, the court revoked his community control sanctions and

sentenced him to prison for three to four-and-a-half years. Thomas appeals.

                                  II.    Assignment of Error

       {¶ 8} Thomas asserts the following assignment of error:

              TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ACCEPTED

       APPELLANT'S ADMISSION OF A VIOLATION OF COMMUNITY

       CONTROL AND SENTENCED HIM TO PRISON, BECAUSE THE

       ADMISSION WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY, VOLUNTARILY

       ENTERED.

       {¶ 9} “[C]ommunity control revocation proceedings are not the same as a criminal

trial, and a revocation of community control punishes the failure to comply with the terms
                                                                                         -5-

and conditions of community control, not the specific conduct that led to the revocation.”

State v. Black, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24005, 2011-Ohio-1273, ¶ 17. “A trial court

need not comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11, which governs pleas, in accepting

an offender’s admission to community control violations.” State v. Cunningham, 2d Dist.

Clark Nos. 2014-CA-99, 2014-CA-100, 2015-Ohio-2554. Instead, Crim.R. 32.3 applies

to community control revocation proceedings and requires that the trial court “shall not

impose a prison term for violation of the conditions of a community control sanction or

revoke probation except after a hearing at which the defendant shall be present and

apprised of the grounds on which action is proposed.”

       {¶ 10} In general, revocation of probation implicates two due process

requirements: (1) a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to

believe that the defendant has violated the terms of his community control; and (2) a final

hearing to determine whether probation should be revoked. State v. Blakeman, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 18983, 2002-Ohio-2153, citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93

S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973).

       {¶ 11} At the final revocation hearing, the trial court must inform the defendant of

the reasons for which his probation is being revoked and provide an adequate record for

review on appeal. State v. Delaney, 11 Ohio St.3d 231, 235, 465 N.E.2d 72 (1984).

Moreover, in order for a trial court to impose a prison term for a violation of community

control sanctions, the court must have “informed the defendant at the original sentencing

hearing or the sentencing hearing held in relation to a prior sanctions violation, of the

potential sentence for a future violation.” State v. Mayle, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2017-
                                                                                          -6-

A-0005, 2017-Ohio-8942, ¶ 23, citing State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13, 2004-Ohio-7110,

821 N.E.2d 995, ¶ 18-19. However, the trial court is not required “to repeat the potential

prison term during the violation proceeding resulting in the imposition of a prison term.”

Id. at ¶ 23.

       {¶ 12} As noted, “the requirements for a full Crim.R. 11(C)(2) plea colloquy do not

apply to a community-control-violation hearing, because a defendant faced with

revocation of community control is not afforded the full spectrum of rights given to a

defendant in a criminal prosecution.” State v. Hampton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29612,

2023-Ohio-1591, ¶ 10, citing State v. Cunningham, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2014-CA-100,

2015-Ohio-2554, ¶ 14; State v. Patton, 2016-Ohio-4867, 68 N.E.3d 273, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.),

citing State v. Parsons, 4th Dist. Athens No. 09CA4, 2009-Ohio-7068, ¶ 11; State v.

Alexander, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-070021, 2007-Ohio-5457, ¶ 7. Generally, “[t]he right

to continue on community control depends upon compliance with community control

conditions and is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the court.” State v. Lewis,

2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23505, 2010-Ohio-3652, ¶ 11, citing State v. Jackson, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 23458, 2010-Ohio-2836, ¶ 56. R.C. 2929.15(B) provides a trial court

with three options if an offender violates a condition of community control, including (a) a

longer time under community control; (b) a more restrictive community control sanction;

or (c) a prison term that does not exceed the prison term specified by the court at the

offender’s sentencing hearing.

       {¶ 13} “A trial court's choice of sanction under R.C. 2929.15(B), where the

defendant has violated the conditions of community control, is subject to review on appeal
                                                                                            -7-

under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 15. “Abuse of

discretion has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable.” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 11.

       {¶ 14} However, “[t]he failure to object to a due process violation during a

community control revocation hearing waives all but plain error.” State v. Klosterman, 2d

Dist. Darke Nos. 2015-CA-9, 2015-CA-10, 2016-Ohio-232, ¶ 15. Under the Ohio Rules of

Criminal Procedure, “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed

although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” State v. Brill, 3d Dist. Union

No. 14-22-20, 2023-Ohio-404, ¶ 8, citing Crim.R. 52(B). “In order to find plain error under

Crim.R. 52(B), there must be an error, the error must be an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial

proceedings, and the error must have affected ‘substantial rights.’ ” Id. at ¶ 8, citing State

v. Bowsher, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-07-32, 2009-Ohio-6524, ¶ 12, quoting State v. Barnes,

94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002). “Notice of plain error is taken ‘only to

“prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” ’ ” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 8. Under Crim.R.

52(B), “the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a plain error affected his

substantial rights.” Id., quoting State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118, 2004-Ohio-297, 802

N.E.2d 643, ¶ 14.

       {¶ 15} Since Thomas did not raise any objections before the trial court, we will

apply the plain error standard of review to his assignment of error.

       {¶ 16} Thomas suggests that he was not properly afforded his due process

protections and, thus, did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily admit to violating the

conditions of his community control sanctions by absconding a second time in July 2022.
                                                                                           -8-

Thomas contends that he would not have admitted to the probation violation if he had

known that the trial court was going to sentence him to prison and not afford him his rights

to contest the alleged community control violation. Thomas asserts that he was confused

about his reporting obligations because of his multiple violations and believed that he

would remain on community control sanctions, noting that he specifically requested a

treatment program in order to address his addiction, which was what led him to violating

the law and his community control sanctions in the first place.

       {¶ 17} The record demonstrates that the trial court advised Thomas at the

original sentencing hearing that, if he violated any condition of his community control

sanctions, the court had the option to impose a longer time under the same sanction,

impose a more restrictive sanction, or impose a prison term of eight to twelve years. In

addition, the trial court’s original judgment entry explained the same consequences of

violating the terms and conditions of community control to Thomas in writing.

       {¶ 18} In April 2022, after Thomas absconded for the first time, he was reinstated

to community control, and the court’s reinstatement entry provided another written notice

to Thomas that the alternative sentence of eight to twelve years under the Reagan Tokes

Act, as set forth at his original sentencing hearing, remained in full force and effect.

       {¶ 19} Around July 2023, after Thomas absconded for a second time, the court

provided him with a notice of community control sanctions revocation hearing, which set

forth his hearing rights. The notice informed Thomas of his rights and set forth four specific

community control sanctions that Thomas was alleged to have violated, which included

that Thomas had been declared an absconder from supervision for a second time on July
                                                                                        -9-

15, 2022. At the revocation hearing, Thomas’s counsel acknowledged receipt of the

revocation notice and waived the first reading of the probation revocation and any defects

in service, and Thomas admitted that he had violated the terms and conditions of his

community control sanctions by absconding a second time. The trial court accepted

Thomas’s admission, finding that it was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, and

scheduled the revocation disposition hearing. The notice provided to Thomas informed

him of his rights as well as the alleged violation of community control sanctions. At the

disposition hearing, Thomas requested drug and mental health treatment and stated that

he was overwhelmed by having probation officers in multiple counties. However, the trial

court expressed that it did not believe that Thomas would comply with additional

community control sanctions because of his history of absconding despite undergoing

drug addiction treatment and remaining under community control sanctions. Thus, it

revoked Thomas’s community control sanctions and sentenced him to prison for three to

four-and-a-half years.

       {¶ 20} Under the foregoing circumstances, we conclude that plain error is not

demonstrated, as the trial court complied with the requirements of due process. First, the

trial court provided Thomas with a preliminary hearing, where Thomas, represented by

counsel, admitted to absconding and thus to violating the terms of his community control.

The trial court then provided Thomas with a final hearing, during which Thomas testified

on his own behalf and the court concluded that Thomas's probation should be revoked

because he had violated his community control by absconding and made excuses for his

actions. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced him in accordance with the original judgment
                                                                                         -10-

entry of conviction.

       {¶ 21} The trial court did not err in accepting Thomas’s admission of violating the

conditions of community control, as there was no evidence that his admission was not

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Thomas did not dispute the alleged

community control violation during the revocation hearing. There was no evidence that

Thomas failed to understand the rights he waived when he admitted to the violation. The

record does not indicate that he objected at any time during the revocation or final

sentencing hearing. The fact that Thomas desired to remain on community control so that

he could receive a third mental health or drug treatment opportunity does not compel the

conclusion that Thomas did not understand his rights or that he believed the trial court

would honor his request. Although Thomas contends that he would not have admitted to

the probation violation if he had known that the trial court was going to sentence him to

prison, he appears to simply regret his decision to admit to the probation violation, rather

than demonstrating a due process violation.

       {¶ 22} In this case, there was “substantial evidence,” through his admission, that

Thomas had absconded and thus had violated the terms of his community control

sanctions. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Thomas has failed to establish

plain error. Even if evaluated under an abuse of discretion standard, the trial court did

not abuse its discretion in revoking Thomas's community control or in imposing a three to

four-and-half year prison sentence. Because Thomas has not carried the burden of

establishing plain error with respect to the trial court's acceptance of his admission, his

sole assignment of error is overruled.
                                                            -11-

                                      III.   Conclusion

      {¶ 23} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                    .............

EPLEY, P.J. and TUCKER, J., concur.