State v. Parker
2022 Ohio 1115
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Corey D. Parker pled guilty (May 20, 2020) to fourth-degree felony trespass in a habitation and a second-degree misdemeanor criminal damaging; court imposed five years community control with standard APA conditions and special conditions (including substance-abuse/anger management assessment and no contact with certain persons).
- Parker entered a residential CBCF program July 2, 2020, but was medically discharged Aug. 20, 2020 for hepatitis C and did not complete required programming or post-release treatment/AA/NA attendance.
- On April 17, 2021, while on community control, Parker committed a domestic-violence incident (admitted drinking, threatened and physically assaulted his fiancée, threw a knife, held her against her will); he later was separately convicted of felony domestic violence in another county.
- APA alleged violations: (1) new criminal conduct (domestic violence incident), (2) failure to complete substance-abuse and anger-management assessments/programming, and (3) failure to pay court costs > $700; a revocation hearing was held May 24, 2021.
- The trial court found the violations and revoked community control, imposing concurrent terms of 18 months (trespass) and 90 days (criminal damaging) for an aggregate 18 months; Parker appealed arguing his violations were only "technical" and thus R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii) capped imprisonment at 180 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the violations were "technical" so R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii) limits imprisonment to 180 days | Violations were non-technical: Parker committed new criminal offenses while on supervision and refused/failed to complete rehabilitative conditions specifically tailored to his misconduct | Violations were technical community-control breaches, so the 180-day cap applies | Court held violations were non-technical (new criminal conduct + failure to complete tailored programming/abandonment of rehabilitative goals); 18-month sentence permissible |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to inquire about inability to pay court costs (Bearden) required reversal | Any Bearden error harmless because non-payment was not the sole basis for revocation; other non-technical violations supported revocation and prison term | Trial court failed to inquire into reasons for nonpayment as required by Bearden v. Georgia | Court found Bearden inquiry was omitted but the omission was harmless given the other valid bases for revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due-process protections required before revoking conditional liberty)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (probable-cause preliminary hearing and final revocation hearing requirements)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (court must inquire into reasons for failure to pay fines/restitution before revoking supervision)
- State v. Nelson, 162 Ohio St.3d 338, 165 N.E.3d 1110 (2020) (framework for distinguishing "technical" vs. nontechnical community-control violations)