State v. Crose, 2023 Ohio 880

Crose was indicted in Crawford County for fifth-degree felony identity fraud and pleaded guilty under a negotiated plea recommending five years community control with a 12-month reserved prison term and waiver of a presentence report.
At the time of the Crawford plea she was serving prison time in Richland County and was judicially released from Richland County on February 4, 2021.
Crose failed to report to her Crawford County probation officer after release; a bench warrant issued and her whereabouts were unknown for weeks.
Crawford County probation filed a violation notice; at a September 6, 2022 revocation hearing the trial court found Crose had absconded (non-technical violation), revoked community control, and imposed a 6‑month prison term to run consecutively to her Richland County sentence.
Crose appealed, arguing (1) the violation was technical (invoking the 90‑day statutory cap for fifth‑degree felonies) and (2) the court lacked authority to order the reserved term consecutive because she was not notified at original sentencing that the reserved term could run consecutively.
The appellate court affirmed the non‑technical finding but reversed the consecutive‑service order as contrary to law under the Supreme Court’s guidance on notice for reserved prison terms.

Issue	State's Argument	Crose's Argument	Held
Was the community‑control violation technical (subject to the 90‑day cap) or non‑technical?	Violation was absconding and thus non‑technical, supporting full reserved term.	Failure to report was a technical violation, so any prison term should be capped at 90 days under R.C. 2929.15(B).	Finding of non‑technical violation (absconding) affirmed; no abuse of discretion.
Could the court order the reserved prison term to run consecutively to the existing Richland County sentence absent prior notice at original sentencing?	Consecutive imposition at revocation was permissible.	Court failed to advise that reserved term could be ordered consecutive, so consecutive order is unlawful.	Consecutive order reversed and remanded because required notice was not given.

State v. Nelson, 162 Ohio St.3d 338 (2020) (framework for distinguishing technical vs. nontechnical community‑control violations)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010) (grounds for appellate review of felony sentences)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)