State v. Lingg, 2011 Ohio 4543

Lingg was indicted on multiple counts but pled guilty to receiving stolen property and forgery under a negotiated plea with remaining counts dismissed and ILC recommended.
The court placed Lingg under probation supervision and incorporated an intervention plan into the ILC order, including housing and other conditions.
Condition 16 required Lingg to follow a court-developed case plan, including housing as part of rehabilitation.
Condition 26 imposed a 90-day jail sanction, later modified to allow Gateway Transitional Housing or other housing options.
Lingg failed to participate in Gateway Housing and Booth House, leading probation to seek modification of his housing and the ILC terms, and eventually revoking ILC and terminating the plea.
Lingg was sentenced to 22 months in prison after the revocation of ILC and filing of his guilty plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation of ILC was proper	Lingg violated ILC by refusing housing options despite case-plan emphasis.	Lingg lacked adequate notice and understanding of the housing components; not all refusals justified revocation.	No abuse of discretion; revocation supported by failure to comply with housing element

State v. Shoaf, 140 Ohio App.3d 75 (Ohio App. 2000) (ILC broader purpose to treat underlying causes rather than punish; applicability across offenses)
State v. Massien, 125 Ohio St.3d 204 (2010) (ILC framework and standards)
Abdalla, 2009-Ohio-1941 (Montgomery App. 2009) (Abdalla addresses limitations of revoking non-ILC sanctions; distinguishable from ILC)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard in appellate review)