State v. Mery, 2011 Ohio 1883

Appellant Juan R. Mery was convicted of robbery and trafficking in counterfeit controlled substances; one firearm charge was dismissed.
Trial court sentenced him to four years of community control with a six-year suspended term in case of future violation.
Appellant entered SRCCC in February 2010; he initially complied but soon accumulated nine rule violations.
Violations included tardiness to classes, dress code, missed education/job classes, inappropriate conduct, tampering with SRCCC property, and lying to staff; he was placed in segregation.
After release from segregation, SRCCC staff attempted to reinstate compliance, but negative behavior continued and he was terminated from the program.
Probation office moved to revoke or modify community control; a June 30, 2010 evidentiary hearing was held, and the court revoked community control and imposed the six-year sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the revocation supported by substantial evidence?	Mery: evidence insufficient; weight to credibility reserved for trier.	Mery: violations show failure to comply; significant rule violations.	Yes; revocation supported by competent, credible evidence; no abuse of discretion.
Is the six-year sentence upon revocation constitutionally cruel or unusual?	Kalish framework applies; sentence within statutory range and properly considered factors.	Disproportionate relative to crime and co-defendants; seeks relief under Eighth Amendment.	No; sentence not clearly or convincingly contrary to law or cruel and unusual.

C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (preponderance-like standard for reviewing probation violations)
State v. White, Stark App. No. 2009-CA-00111, 2009-Ohio-6447 (2010) (probation revocation is not a criminal trial; deferential review)
State v. Ritenour, 2006-Ohio-4744 (2006) (some competent, credible evidence standard for probation violations)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912 (2008) (two-step review of felony sentence; Foster subsequent refinement)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856 (2006) (trial courts have wide discretion in sentencing within statutory range)
State v. Wolfe, 2009-Ohio-830 (2009) (consideration of mental health in sentencing remains permissible)
State v. Hill, 70 Ohio St.3d 25, 1994 (1994) (no entitlement to identical sentences for co-defendants; within statutory authority)
State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289, 2008-Ohio-2338 (2008) (general rule: valid statute-based sentences do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment)
State v. Chaffin, 30 Ohio St.2d 13 (1972) (cruel and unusual punishment standard requires gross disparity)