2021 Ohio 3362
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- David Richardson pled guilty in Nov. 2018 to two counts of fourth-degree cocaine trafficking and was placed on two years of community control with intensive supervision and ordered to enter drug treatment; the court warned that violations could result in 18 months’ incarceration per case.
- On July 15, 2019, a probation officer conducted a home visit and searched Richardson’s bedroom, finding a locked box in a dresser containing multiple controlled substances, and two cell phones; police were summoned and Richardson was arrested.
- New criminal drug charges were later filed but dismissed after the trial court suppressed the seized drugs (finding no reasonable suspicion); the state did not appeal that suppression ruling.
- Probation violations were filed alleging the police contact/drug discovery, refusal to provide phone passcodes, a positive marijuana test, and failure to pay probation fees.
- At the revocation hearing the trial court considered the seized drugs and other evidence, found Richardson had violated community-control terms, revoked community control, and imposed concurrent 12‑month prison terms in each case.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of allegedly illegally seized evidence at revocation hearing | Evidence is admissible in revocation proceedings (relying on Wright and Scott) | Exclusionary rule bars unlawfully seized evidence at probation revocation (relying on Burkholder) | Court held the evidence admissible; Wright overruled Burkholder for revocation/parole proceedings |
| Counsel’s failure to object to admission of the seized evidence (due‑process claim) | No prejudice because the evidence was admissible; no due‑process violation | Counsel’s failure to object deprived Richardson of due process | Court held no error; counsel not ineffective on this ground |
| Manifest weight/substantial evidence for revocation | Probation testimony, drugs found in dresser in defendant’s bedroom, phone use/refusal to provide passcodes, and other violations provide competent, credible evidence | Richardson denied knowledge of the drugs, disputed phone ownership/passcodes, and argued some violations were de minimis | Court applied "some competent, credible evidence" standard and found substantial evidence to revoke; no abuse of discretion |
| Sentencing after revocation (compliance with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; minimum necessary) | Court considered sentencing purposes; original warning allowed up to 18 months per case; imposed 12 months concurrent supported by record | Sentence not necessary to protect public and not the minimum adequate sanction | Court held the sentence was supported by the record and not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burkholder, 12 Ohio St.3d 205, 466 N.E.2d 176 (Ohio 1984) (earlier Ohio Supreme Court decision applying exclusionary rule to revocation proceedings)
- State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 82, 661 N.E.2d 728 (Ohio 1996) (overruling Burkholder and holding illegally seized evidence generally admissible in parole/probation revocation)
- Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1998) (U.S. Supreme Court holding federal exclusionary rule does not bar evidence at parole revocation hearings)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978) (standard for "some competent, credible evidence")
- State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13, 821 N.E.2d 995 (Ohio 2004) (trial court must resentence following community-control violation and comply with sentencing statutes)