State v. Fye, 2015 Ohio 4184

Background

Ryan Fye pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated vehicular homicide and two counts of aggravated vehicular assault and was sentenced to three years in prison.
At plea, defense counsel understood the judge would grant judicial release after six months if Fye stayed out of trouble; the state did not object to that understanding.
After serving six months, the trial court granted judicial release over the prosecutor’s objection, placing Fye on community control and requiring compliance with probation rules (including Rule No. 2: conduct “upon reporting to the Probation Department and when in Court”).
Nine days after release the court issued a capias based on a Facebook post Fye made the day judicial release was granted (a photo with middle fingers and a caption referencing prison and friends behind bars).
The probation officer reported the post as a violation; after a hearing the court revoked judicial release and ordered Fye to serve the remainder of his three-year sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Facebook post violated Rule No. 2 of the probation rules	The state: Rule No. 2’s requirement to "conduct yourself in an orderly manner" should be read broadly to apply at all times after reporting — i.e., conduct outside probation or court may violate the rule	Fye: Rule No. 2 applies only when the probationer is "upon reporting to the Probation Department" or "when in Court," so the offsite Facebook post did not fall within the rule	Court: Rule No. 2 is plain and limited to conduct at the probation office or in court; the Facebook post did not violate Rule No. 2 (reversal)
Whether the court lawfully revoked community control for the Facebook post	The state: revocation was proper because the post demonstrated disorderly conduct inconsistent with community control	Fye: revocation on that basis was an error of law because the post did not fall within the quoted scope of Rule No. 2	Court: Revocation based on Rule No. 2 was legal error (abuse of discretion cannot stand when based on incorrect legal interpretation); reversal required
Whether the post implicated constitutional free-speech protections and whether the court failed to explain revocation	The state: not addressed as primary; argues conduct warranted action	Fye: post was constitutionally protected speech and the court failed to provide a written explanation for revocation	Court: Declined to decide constitutional question and mootness of the written-explanation claim because reversal on the nonconstitutional statutory/rule interpretation ground made them unnecessary

Key Cases Cited

State v. Silverman, 906 N.E.2d 427 (Ohio 2009) (rules/statutes interpreted by plain and ordinary meaning)
State ex rel. Brilliant Elec. Sign Co. v. Indus. Comm., 386 N.E.2d 1107 (Ohio 1979) (plain-meaning rule for interpreting rules)
E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 530 N.E.2d 875 (Ohio 1988) (avoid construing words as redundant)
State v. Vanzandt, 28 N.E.3d 1267 (Ohio 2015) (interpretation of statutes or rules is a question of law)
State v. Ishmail, 377 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio 1978) (appellate courts may not consider materials not in the record on appeal)