State v. Smith, 2021 Ohio 630

Anthony Smith pled guilty to fifth-degree aggravated possession of drugs and was sentenced to three years of community control with conditions including reporting to probation and completing CRC treatment if directed.
Smith repeatedly failed to appear at hearings and repeatedly failed to report to his probation officer; multiple bench warrants were issued and he was often released on OR bond with instructions to report.
After multiple affidavits alleging failures to report and refusal to engage in treatment, Smith admitted to the June 4, 2020 affidavit (alleging almost two months without contact and failure to report) and was continued on community control on May 26, 2020 with orders to reengage in CRC.
Smith again failed to comply; on July 22, 2020 the trial court terminated community control and imposed a nine-month prison sentence, finding the violations nontechnical and citing refusal to participate in residential treatment.
Smith appealed, arguing (1) failure-to-report is a technical violation limiting prison to 90 days under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i), and (2) due process was violated because the court relied on an uncharged/unadmitted failure-to-engage-in-treatment in imposing sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to report was a "technical" violation limiting prison to 90 days under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i)	State: Smith’s prolonged failures and cumulative refusals to comply (including not reporting for ~2 months and not engaging in treatment) show a nontechnical violation justifying full prison term.	Smith: Failure to report is a quintessential technical/administrative violation, so the 90-day cap applies.	Court: Nontechnical. Smith’s extended, repetitive refusal to report and to engage in treatment constituted a pattern amounting to failure to comply with community control as a whole.
Whether the trial court violated due process by relying on a violation (failure to engage in treatment) not alleged in the June 4 affidavit or admitted by Smith	State: Trial court permissibly considered the total record and prior violations; there was an adequate basis to reference treatment noncompliance.	Smith: He had notice only of a failure-to-report allegation and did not admit treatment noncompliance; sentencing on an uncharged violation violated due process.	Court: No reversal. Record lacked transcript of the June 16 admission hearing (defendant’s burden to provide). Court presumed regularity and that the trial court had a proper basis for referencing treatment noncompliance.

State v. Nelson, 2020-Ohio-3690 (Ohio 2020) (distinguishes technical vs. nontechnical community-control violations and approves totality-of-circumstances analysis)
State v. Neville, 2019-Ohio-151 (Ohio Ct. App.) (failure to report for over three months is nontechnical)
State v. Kernall, 2019-Ohio-3070 (Ohio Ct. App.) (cumulative minor violations can amount to nontechnical violation)
State v. Martinez, 2019-Ohio-3350 (Ohio Ct. App.) (pattern of noncooperation with authorities supports nontechnical finding)
State v. Davis, 2018-Ohio-2672 (Ohio Ct. App.) (community-control conditions tailored to address conduct are substantive/rehabilitative)