Court Opinion

ID: 9398827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 14:08:18.749391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:36.780548
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Moore, 2023-Ohio-1819.]

                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,              :
                                                           No. 112289
                 v.                               :

RAYVONNE MOORE,                                   :

                 Defendant-Appellant.             :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART,
                           AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 1, 2023

         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                            Case No. CR-21-662360-A

                                            Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Omar Lebron Siddiq, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellee.

                 Law Offices of Fernando Mack and Carlos Johnson and
                 Brandon Marsalis Summers, for appellant.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:

                   Defendant-appellant Rayvonne Moore (“Moore”) appeals the terms

of his sentence to community-control sanctions. Pursuant to Loc.App.R. 16(B),
plaintiff-appellee, state of Ohio, concedes this error. After a thorough independent

review of the record and law, we reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Factual and Procedural History

               This incident stems from a traffic stop where Moore was found to

have a loaded firearm in his possession. On September 8, 2021, a Cuyahoga County

Grand Jury indicted Moore on one count of improperly handling a firearm in a

motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B), with a forfeiture specification.

               On October 6, 2021, Moore pleaded not guilty. The parties conducted

discovery, and the court held pretrial hearings between October 18, 2021, and April

25, 2022. On June 6, 2022, Moore failed to appear for trial. The court issued a

capias, and on September 14, 2022, the court obtained custody of Moore.

               On October 18, 2022, Moore accepted a plea deal and entered a guilty

plea to the amended charge of attempted improperly handling of firearms in a motor

vehicle, with forfeiture specifications.    The trial court referred Moore for a

presentence investigation.

               The presentence-investigation report (“PSI”) reflects Moore’s arrest

in 2021 for driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol in violation of R.C.

4511.19(A)(1)(a); failure to comply with a police officer’s order in violation of R.C.

2921.331; and possession of marijuana in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(3). 1 The trial

court dismissed the charges related to possession of marijuana, and Moore pleaded

      1The 2021 cases are referenced as Sandusky C.P. Nos. 21CRB274, 21CRA273, and
21TRC3149A.
no contest to the amended charges of willfully eluding or fleeing a police officer in

violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) and having physical control of a vehicle while under

the influence of drugs or alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.194. The PSI also states

that Moore denied being under the influence of drugs when arrested for the charges

related to the instant case, and Moore reported infrequent alcohol consumption at

“special occasions” and regular consumption of marijuana.

               On December 6, 2022, the trial court sentenced Moore to

community-control sanctions for a period of five years and issued a sentencing

judgment entry. At issue in this appeal is the trial court’s imposition of the following

community-control sanctions: (1) no drugs or alcohol; (2) random drug testing; and

(3) daily attendance at a 12-step program with specific requirements as to regularity

of participation and engagement with a sponsor.

               From the trial court’s order imposing community-control sanctions,

Moore filed a timely notice of appeal on January 5, 2023, presenting a single

assignment of error:

      When there was no connection between the crime for which Mr. Moore
      was being sentenced and substance use[,] the trial court abused its
      discretion in prohibiting Mr. Moore from any place or event in which
      alcohol is being consumed; requiring the random testing of Mr. Moore
      for alcohol or drug consumption; and requiring Mr. Moore’s
      participation in AA.

Legal Analysis

               An appellate court reviews the trial court’s imposition of community-

control sanctions for an abuse of discretion. State v. Cooper, 2016-Ohio-8048, 75
N.E.3d 805, ¶ 31 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177, 2004-Ohio-

4888, 814 N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 10. Although a trial court “is granted broad discretion in

imposing community control sanctions, its discretion is not limitless.” State v.

White, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-1027, 2015-Ohio-3844, ¶ 5, citing Talty at ¶ 11.

              R.C. 2929.15(A) authorizes a trial court to impose financial sanctions,

“as well as any other conditions of release under a community control sanction that

the court considers appropriate.” Cooper at ¶ 32, citing Talty at ¶ 10. Community-

control conditions, however, must not be overbroad and must be reasonably related

to the goals of community control: “rehabilitation, administering justice, and

ensuring good behavior.” State v. Mahon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106043, 2018-

Ohio-295, ¶ 7, quoting Talty at ¶ 16.

              In determining whether community-control sanctions are reasonably

related to these goals, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated that courts must consider

‘“whether the condition (1) is reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender, (2)

has some relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, and (3)

relates to the conduct which is criminal or reasonably related to future criminality

and serves the statutory ends of probation.’” Talty at ¶ 12, quoting State v. Jones,

49 Ohio St.3d 51, 53, 550 N.E.2d 469 (1990). All three prongs of this test must be

satisfied for the reviewing court to find that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion. Mahon at ¶ 8, citing White at ¶ 10. Further, the conditions “‘cannot be

overly broad so as to unnecessarily impinge upon the offender’s liberty.’” Talty at ¶

13, quoting Jones at 52.
              Moore argues that the second factor of the Jones test is not met

because the crime for which his sentence was imposed — attempted improperly

handling of firearms in a motor vehicle with a forfeiture specification — involved

neither drug nor alcohol use. Moore also notes that pursuant to the first prong of

the Jones test, drug- and alcohol-based community-control conditions are

irrelevant to his rehabilitation. Lastly, in respect to Jones’ third prong, Moore

argues that the record does not indicate his substance use “is problematic” or relates

to his future criminality. Our review of the record reveals that the trial court’s

community-control sanctions relating to drug and alcohol use do not satisfy the

second prong of the Jones test.

              In regard to the second Jones factor, this court has previously

required some nexus between an offender’s crime and drug or alcohol use or abuse

in order to uphold drug- and alcohol-related community-control sanctions. See

Strongsville v. Feliciano, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96294, 2011-Ohio-5394 (finding

the trial court abused its discretion in ordering defendant to have a drug and alcohol

assessment and random drug and alcohol testing where the record is devoid of any

mention of drugs or alcohol involvement); Mahon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106043,

2018-Ohio-295 (finding the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed drug-

and alcohol-related community-control sanctions when there was no mention of

drugs or alcohol being involved in the underlying offense or that defendant had a

history of drug or alcohol abuse); State v. Brown, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111173,

2022-Ohio-3233 (finding no nexus between defendant’s conviction for criminal
nonsupport and a community-control prohibition on being anywhere alcohol is

sold, served, or used); State v. Clemons, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111561, 2022-Ohio-

4395 (finding that defendant’s conviction of carrying a concealed weapon and

defendant’s possession of a small amount of marijuana at the time defendant was

initially detained by police officers did not establish the necessary nexus to find

drug- or alcohol-prohibitive community-control sanctions reasonable); and State v.

McQuade, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112158, 2023-Ohio-1483 (finding no relationship

between underlying crimes of attempted violation of an anti-stalking protection

order and telecommunications harassment and the trial court’s imposition of drug

and alcohol community-control sanctions).

               Here, the record shows that when the police officers arrested Moore

for improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, the officers found a suspected

marijuana cigarette in the vehicle’s center console. Yet, the underlying indictment

did not include any charges related to marijuana. Further, nothing in the record

supports the conclusion that Moore’s possession of marijuana bore any nexus to his

conviction of attempted improperly handling a firearm.            The record also

demonstrates that Moore’s conviction bears no relation to alcohol use. Consistent

with this court’s precedent in Feliciano, Mahon, Brown, Clemons, and McQuade,

we must find that the trial court’s community-control sanctions that imposed drug

and alcohol restrictions are unreasonable under the second prong of the Jones test,

and this finding is dispositive of this appeal.
               The state concedes the error. For the foregoing reasons, Moore’s

assignment of error is sustained for failure to satisfy the Jones test. We vacate the

following portions of the trial court’s December 6, 2022 sentencing order imposing

drug and alcohol-related prohibitions:

      No drugs or alcohol.

      Do not patronize any location where drugs and/or alcohol are sold,
      served, or used. This includes but is not limited to restaurants, bars,
      sporting venues, concerts, family weddings, backyard barbeques,
      private parties, political events, etc. [2]

      The defendant must submit to random testing. When requested, the
      defendant must know the hours of the lab and when specimens are
      taken.

      You must attend a 12-step program meeting every day for 90 days,
      thereafter, Sundays off and every other day Monday-Wednesday-
      Friday or Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, not three times a week.

      Must have a same-sex sponsor within 30 days and must give his/her
      name and number to your probation officer. Sponsor must have 10
      years of sobriety. No family, friends, or relatives allowed.

      Weekly meaningful meetings with your sponsor.             Keep a log and
      summary of your meeting.

      2  The trial court’s December 6, 2022 sentencing judgment entry erroneously
included the following sanction even though it was not imposed during the sentencing
hearing:

      Do not patronize any location where drugs and/or alcohol are sold, served, or
      used. This includes but is not limited to restaurants, bars, sporting venues,
      concerts, family weddings, backyard barbeques, private parties, political
      events, etc.

The trial court’s error is moot since this court reverses and vacates the lower court’s
imposition of this community-control sanction.
              Judgment reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      It is ordered that appellant recover of said appellee costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR