State v. Davis
2014 Ohio 2122
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Adam Davis was indicted for possession of cocaine (fifth-degree felony) and requested intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC).
- The trial court granted ILC after Davis pled guilty and warned that a positive drug test could lead to revocation, license loss, and jail or prison.
- Probation reported Davis tested positive for cocaine; at a hearing Davis admitted the violation after being told admission would allow him to remain on ILC.
- The state moved to revoke ILC under R.C. 2951.041(F), which requires a court to find guilt and impose an appropriate sanction under R.C. Chapter 2929 upon a violation.
- The trial court, over the state’s objection, allowed Davis to continue on ILC but ordered he serve four days in jail and amended his treatment plan.
- The state appealed, arguing the trial court’s action contravened the mandatory language of R.C. 2951.041(F). The appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may keep a defendant on ILC after finding the defendant violated its terms | State: R.C. 2951.041(F) is mandatory — upon finding a failure to comply the court "shall enter a finding of guilty and shall impose an appropriate sanction under Chapter 2929" | Davis: Requested continued treatment; argued violation was inadvertent and he could comply going forward | Court: R.C. 2951.041(F) is plain and unambiguous; after a violation the court must enter guilt and impose an appropriate Chapter 2929 sanction. Trial court erred by allowing continued ILC with only four days in jail and must resentence on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Massien, 125 Ohio St.3d 204 (2010) (explaining ILC treats drug dependency as cause and treats rather than punishes)
- State v. Shoaf, 140 Ohio App.3d 75 (10th Dist. 2000) (ILC legislative purpose to address chemical abuse)
- State v. Baker, 131 Ohio App.3d 507 (7th Dist. 1998) (discussion of treatment versus punishment rationale for ILC)
- State v. Abi-Aazar, 149 Ohio App.3d 359 (9th Dist. 2002) (holding R.C. 2951.041(F) requires court to impose appropriate sanction under Chapter 2929 after ILC violation)