State v. Baker
2019 Ohio 2280
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Baker pled guilty to fifth-degree-felony possession of heroin after an overdose and was sentenced to three years of community control with standard conditions plus a special condition requiring completion of a specified drug-treatment program.
- Over several years Baker accumulated repeated community-control violations (positive drug tests, absconding, failure to follow PO instructions, and failure to complete mandated treatment); she repeatedly admitted the violations at multiple hearings.
- After an unsuccessful discharge from the mandated residential treatment program (possession of heroin brought in by a visitor, then leaving without permission), the court filed a fourth violation and held a bifurcated revocation/sentencing proceeding.
- At sentencing Baker asked the court to limit any jail term to 90 days under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i); the trial court concluded the 90‑day cap did not apply because Baker’s violation was not merely technical and involved commission of a felony-level possession.
- The trial court revoked community control and imposed a 12-month prison term; Baker appealed solely arguing the 90‑day statutory limitation should have applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90‑day cap in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) applied to Baker’s revocation sentence | Baker: the violation as charged did not allege a new felony, so the 90‑day limit should apply (it was a technical violation) | State: Baker violated a court‑imposed special condition (completion of tailored drug treatment); that is a non‑technical substantive violation, so the 90‑day cap does not apply | Court: Affirmed — the failure to complete the court‑ordered treatment was a non‑technical, substantive violation; 90‑day cap inapplicable; 12‑month sentence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (sets standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221 (Ohio 2016) (appellate courts may modify sentences only upon clear and convincing showing that the sentence is contrary to law or unsupported by the record)