State v. Eastman, 2021 Ohio 392

Bryan Eastman was indicted (June 2016) for receiving stolen property; released on own recognizance but later detained in other counties and a capias issued for failing to appear.
On May 17, 2017 Eastman pled to an amended fifth-degree RSP; June 7, 2017 court imposed five years of community control and 180 days local jail (suspended pending completion of a drug/alcohol program).
April 26, 2018 Eastman admitted failing to report and failing to complete a drug/alcohol assessment; he was ordered to appear May 4, 2018 but failed to appear and a capias issued.
Eastman was arrested later and on January 9, 2020 the court revoked community control, sentenced him to 12 months in prison (with 237 days credit) and ordered the sentence consecutive to a Miami County sentence.
Eastman appealed, raising (1) that the court held an October 5, 2016 pretrial hearing without his presence or a waiver, and (2) that the court improperly imposed a 12‑month prison term for nontechnical violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Oct. 5, 2016 pretrial hearing proceeding without Eastman present (and without a waiver) was reviewable on this appeal	State: issue is barred by res judicata because Eastman did not appeal the original conviction/sentence imposing community control	Eastman: court erred by conducting a pretrial hearing in his absence and without obtaining a waiver of presence	Overruled — res judicata bars review of pre-sentence procedural complaints that could have been raised on direct appeal of the conviction/sentence
Whether the revocation and 12‑month prison sentence were improper because the violations were "technical" (thus capped at 90 days)	State: failures to report and to complete assessment were substantive, specifically tailored rehabilitative conditions related to his misconduct; revocation and prison term within court's discretion	Eastman: his absence for the May 4 disposition was due to incapacity/transport issues and he was told his community control had been terminated; violations were technical so 90‑day cap applies	Overruled — court reasonably found failures to report and complete assessment were nontechnical (substantive rehabilitative conditions); 12‑month sentence was permissible under R.C. 2929.15 and within the court's discretion

State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata bars issues that could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2006) (issues not raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process protections required before revoking conditional liberty)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (preliminary and final hearings required before revocation of conditional liberty)
State v. Dalton, 147 N.E.3d 1205 (Ohio App. 2019) (discussing abuse of discretion standard and revocation review)