State v. Davis, 2017 Ohio 8479

In April 2015 Kenneth R. Davis, Jr. pled guilty to narcotics charges and the trial court granted intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC) under R.C. 2951.041, placing him on one year of supervised treatment and random testing.
Davis tested positive for marijuana multiple times (first reported in Aug. 2015, again in Feb. 2016, and a third positive test in Apr. 2016).
The court repeatedly continued Davis in ILC, warned that further positive tests could result in termination from ILC and jail sanctions, and granted time to enroll in intensive outpatient treatment.
After the third positive test the court ordered Davis to serve five days in county jail (Apr. 29–May 4, 2016) and later found him in violation, terminated him from ILC, entered findings of guilt, and scheduled sentencing.
Davis filed a pro se motion in Aug. 2016 to dismiss or withdraw his guilty plea (requesting counsel to join); the trial court did not rule on it and in Oct. 2016 sentenced Davis to community control.
Davis appealed, challenging (1) the legality of the five-day jail sanction without a prior finding of guilt and (2) the trial court’s failure to grant a hearing or permit withdrawal of his plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could impose a five-day jail sanction while Davis remained in ILC without first entering a finding of guilt	State: ILC authorizes supervision and sanctions to enforce the intervention plan; the court may impose rehabilitative measures to ensure compliance.	Davis: R.C. 2951.041 does not permit jail sanctions without a finding of guilt; the April 2016 detention order is void and taints his conviction/sentence.	Court: Overruled. The five-day jail stay was a rehabilitative sanction consistent with ILC oversight and intended to encourage compliance; court’s actions were proper.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not ruling on or hearing Davis’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea	State: The court did not err because Davis was represented by appointed counsel when he filed the pro se motion, and pro se motions are improper when counsel represents the defendant.	Davis: He claims he was unrepresented when he filed the motion and thus the pro se motion should have been considered; alternatively, he sought to withdraw his plea.	Court: Overruled. Davis was represented by appointed counsel; hybrid (pro se + counsel) filings are not permitted and the pro se motion was not properly before the court.

State v. Massien, 926 N.E.2d 1282 (Ohio 2010) (explaining purpose and operation of ILC and statutory framework under R.C. 2951.041)
State v. Shoaf, 746 N.E.2d 674 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (discussing legislative purpose of treatment-focused alternatives to punishment)