State v. Kuhn, 2018 Ohio 4065

Kuhn was indicted on trespass in a habitation, resisting arrest, and obstructing official business after an alcohol-involved incident; she has substance abuse and mental-health issues.
She moved for and was granted Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (ILC) under R.C. 2951.041, pled guilty to the charges, and was placed on an ILC treatment plan that required compliance with probation officer orders.
Probation alleged Kuhn failed to report as required; Kuhn stipulated she did not report but argued her mental condition prevented a knowing or purposeful violation.
The trial court found Kuhn guilty of violating the ILC plan, revoked ILC, and imposed a three-year community-control sanction under the R.C. scheme then in effect.
Kuhn appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) revocation required proof of deliberate/willful violation; (2) court had discretion to continue ILC after a violation (relying on a statutory amendment); and (3) ineffective assistance for not seeking a continuance until after the statutory amendment took effect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State must prove the ILC violation was purposeful/willful before revocation	State: No, willfulness/purposeful intent is not required to find ILC violation	Kuhn: Court must show deliberate/knowing breach to revoke ILC	Court: No authority requires proof of purposeful/willful conduct; revocation may be based on violation itself
Whether trial court was required to revoke ILC (no discretion) after finding a violation	State: Under the statute in effect at the time, court was required to revoke and impose sanction under R.C. Ch. 2929	Kuhn: Am.Sub.S.B. 33 (passed Dec. 22, 2017) gave courts discretion to continue ILC and should have applied	Court: The amendment had not taken effect (effective Mar. 23, 2018); court correctly applied the law in effect and was required to revoke
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to continue the hearing until after the amendment took effect	State: Counsel reasonably declined or delay would have been futile; no prejudice shown	Kuhn: Failure to seek continuance deprived her of benefit of new statutory discretion	Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; continuance could have been denied and amendment did not mandate continuation even if effective

State v. Massien, 125 Ohio St.3d 204 (Ohio 2010) (ILC aims to treat chemical-dependence causes rather than punish)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Kaplowitz, 100 Ohio St.3d 205 (Ohio 2003) (statutory effective-date principles; R.C. 1.58(B) scope)