State v. Calhoun
2019 Ohio 228
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In March 2017 Delorean Calhoun pleaded guilty to fifth-degree felony forgery and was sentenced to four years of community control with the court stating it was "reserving" a 12‑month prison term if he violated conditions.
- Conditions included transfer of supervision to West Virginia to allow Calhoun to live, work, and attend college there; he requested that transfer at sentencing.
- Calhoun absconded from supervision in West Virginia (failed to report, could not be contacted, resisted return), and the State petitioned to revoke his community control. Calhoun admitted the violation and told the court he preferred to go to prison.
- At a revocation hearing in October 2017, the trial court imposed nine months’ imprisonment; Calhoun moved to vacate arguing R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) (effective Sept. 29, 2017) limits prison for a "technical violation" of a fifth‑degree felony community control to 90 days.
- The trial court concluded Calhoun’s willful absconding was more than a "technical violation," reinstated the nine‑month term, and Calhoun appealed. The Sixth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court exceeded statutory authority by imposing >90 days for community-control violation after Sept. 29, 2017 | State: revocation and imposed prison within range reserved at sentencing; absconding is not a technical violation | Calhoun: failure to report is a "technical violation" under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i), so prison cannot exceed 90 days | Court held absconding and willful failure to comply were not a "technical violation;" 9‑month term lawful |
| Whether the record supports revocation and the chosen sanction | State: substantial evidence of willful absconding and evasion; court has broad discretion | Calhoun: statute limits sanction for non-felony violations | Court held substantial evidence supports revocation and imposition of a nine‑month sentence; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the sentencing/notice requirement was satisfied for imposing a reserved prison term on revocation | State: trial court gave notice of the reserved 12‑month term at original sentencing | Calhoun: (argued statutory limit overrides) | Court held trial court complied with R.C. 2929.19 notice requirements and sentence was within the authorized range |
| Interpretation of "technical violation" in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) | Calhoun: any non-new‑felony violation qualifies as "technical" | State: "technical" should be narrower; substantive rehabilitative conditions and willful absconding are not technical | Court held "technical violation" ambiguous but adopts the view that willful absconding/substantive-condition breaches are not technical violations |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507, 861 N.E.2d 512 (Ohio 2007) (statutory construction/plain‑meaning principle)
- State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 66 Ohio St.3d 121, 609 N.E.2d 546 (Ohio 1993) (defined parole "technical violations" as noncriminal failures such as failure to report)
- State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 35 N.E.3d 512 (Ohio 2015) (trial court may only impose sentences authorized by statute)
- State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 814 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio 2004) (notice at sentencing of prison term that may follow community-control violation)
- State v. Jackson, 150 Ohio St.3d 362, 81 N.E.3d 1237 (Ohio 2016) (scope of trial court discretion when revoking community control sanctions)