State v. Stanko, 2019 Ohio 152

Stanko pled guilty to breaking and entering (5th° felony), attempted tampering with evidence (4th° felony), and petty theft (misdemeanor) and received five years of community control with special conditions addressing substance abuse.
Conditions included no drugs/alcohol, a sobriety sponsor, 90 days of verified 12‑step meeting attendance, random screens, and full‑time employment; court warned a 30‑month prison term could be imposed for violations.
She missed probation reporting, failed to attend daily 12‑step meetings as ordered, and had a July 2017 urine screen positive for alcohol; she was arrested for failing to report and later had a violation hearing.
At the violation hearing the court found she violated community control and imposed the previously announced 30‑month prison term (12 + 18 months), with 216 days credit.
Stanko appealed, arguing her violations were “technical” under the 2017 amendment to R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii), which limits prison for technical violations of a 4th° felony to 180 days; the State argued her violations were not technical.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stanko’s violations were “technical” under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii)	Violations were more than technical because multiple noncompliances show substantial breach	Stanko: failures were technical (noncriminal, tied to substance abuse treatment) and thus subject to 180‑day cap	Violations were "technical"; 180‑day statutory cap applies
Whether the trial court could impose the previously announced 30‑month term	Court may impose the stated prison term for violations and retain discretion for serious breaches	Statutory amendment limits prison for purely technical violations despite prior notice	Court may impose prior term only when violation is not merely technical; here limitation controls
Standard of appellate review for sentence challenge	Sentence challenged as contrary to law	Same	Review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); reversal if sentence is contrary to law
Whether failure to report automatically removes technical‑violation protection	State: repeated failures to report can be nontechnical and justify full term	Stanko: her noncompliance did not amount to wholesale abandonment of conditions	Court distinguished wholesale refusal (nontechnical) from isolated/noncriminal lapses; here facts showed technical violations

State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (defines appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 609 N.E.2d 546 (Ohio 1993) (probation/conditional release principles informing breach analysis)
Inmates’ Councilmatic Voice v. Rogers, 541 F.2d 633 (6th Cir. 1976) (authority cited regarding custodial/conditional‑release contexts)