2019 Ohio 2420
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Bryan K. Fisher pled guilty to two fifth-degree felony drug offenses and was sentenced to five years of community control with special conditions including completion of SEPTA and The Landing (residential treatment programs).
- Fisher tested positive for drugs, was terminated from SEPTA, and later was unsuccessfully terminated from The Landing after a medical furlough during which he was released to family rather than returned to jail as ordered.
- The State filed multiple notices of violation and moved to revoke community control and impose the underlying prison terms.
- The trial court revoked community control and imposed consecutive 12-month prison terms on each count (aggregate 24 months).
- Fisher appealed, arguing the 90-day cap in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) applied because his violations were merely "technical" or non-felony, so the 24-month sentence exceeded the statutory cap.
- The Fourth District affirmed, holding Fisher’s failure to complete mandated treatment was more than a mere technical violation and thus the 90-day cap did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Fisher's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90-day statutory cap for prison terms imposed for technical violations of community control (R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i)) applied to Fisher’s revocation | The violations were not merely technical: (1) failing to return after furlough could be a felony escape; (2) completion of mandated treatment is a substantive special condition; thus the 90‑day cap is inapplicable | The failures (not completing The Landing; hospital release to family) were technical or non-felony violations, so R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) limited the sentence to 90 days | The court held the treatment-completion requirement was a substantive rehabilitation condition (non-technical). The 90‑day cap did not apply; the 24‑month aggregate sentence was not contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191 (Ohio 2001) (appellate courts generally will not consider errors not raised below absent plain error)
- State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 66 Ohio St.3d 121 (Ohio 1993) (definition of "technical" parole violations as non-criminal breaches of parole terms)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate reversal of sentences: clearly and convincingly not supported or contrary to law)