State v. Johnson
2021 Ohio 1614
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Jamar J. Johnson was convicted in two Toledo Municipal Court misdemeanor cases and placed on 18 months active probation; conditions included an alcohol/drug assessment and, in one case, a batterer’s intervention program.
- In Oct. 2018 Johnson was granted a medical furlough from CCNO; he left the hospital but did not report back to court or his probation officer for about six months.
- Summonses issued for probation-violation hearings; Johnson missed initial hearings, was taken into custody April 14, 2019, and multiple hearings were continued through 2020 amid appointments of counsel and scheduling difficulties.
- At the Sept. 23, 2020 hearing Johnson admitted he had not completed the assessment/treatment or the batterer’s intervention program; the court also found he failed to report after the furlough and had a long history of failures to appear.
- The court found multiple probation violations, ordered each 30-day sentence enforced with 20 days credit, and directed the remaining 10 days to be served consecutively; Johnson appealed challenging consecutive sentences and the imposition of incarceration.
Issues:
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing consecutive sentences was an abuse of discretion after a single violation | Only one probation violation was found, so consecutive sentences were improper | Record shows multiple violations (failure to complete assessment/treatment in both cases; failure to complete batterer’s program in one) | Affirmed — court found multiple violations; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether jailing Johnson for failing to complete required programs was an abuse of discretion given his hospitalization/incarceration | COVID, hospitalization, and incarceration made completion impossible; court should have used reserved jail or community control | Court considered hardship but relied on Johnson’s six-month failure to report, new offenses, and habitual failures to appear; misdemeanor sentencing goals include public protection and punishment | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; record supports jail terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Perz, 877 N.E.2d 702 (Ohio App. 2007) (misdemeanor sentencing reviewed for abuse of discretion)