State v. Westrick
196 Ohio App. 3d 141
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Westrick was indicted on three counts of deception to obtain a dangerous drug, pled guilty to Count Three, and the state dismissed Counts One and Two.
- She was sentenced to three years of community control with special sanctions including 30 days jail and disclosure of one medical-provider and one pharmacy.
- In November 2009, the state moved to revoke community control for multiple violations; she admitted to several violations and received a 12-month prison sentence.
- Judicial release was granted on February 17, 2010, under general community-control terms plus a mandate to complete WO RT H and to use only one pharmacy and disclose it to the supervising officer.
- In July 2010 the state sought revocation of judicial release based on using more than one pharmacy and failing to disclose; a hearing occurred on August 24, 2010.
- The trial court found that she violated the terms of judicial release and reimposed the 12-month sentence; Westrick appeals challenging the revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crim.R. 29 applicability to revocation | Westrick argues for acquittal because evidence is insufficient to sustain a release violation. | Westrick acknowledges revocation hearing is not a criminal trial; Crim.R. 29 not applicable. | Crim.R. 29 not applicable; motion denied. |
| Substantial evidence of violation | State argues substantial evidence supports the violation findings. | Westrick contends evidence is insufficient to prove violations beyond a reasonable doubt. | There was substantial evidence to support the violation. |
| Overbreadth and enforceability of conditions | Conditions requiring one pharmacy and disclosure are reasonably related to rehabilitation and crime prevention. | These terms are vague/overbroad and unenforceable due to reporting mechanics. | Conditions were not overbroad or vague; enforceable and related to ends of probation/judicial release. |
| Hearsay at revocation hearing | Hearsay testimony about what others were told is admissible to determine violations. | Hearsay can compromise confrontation rights; sole or crucial reliance on hearsay is reversible error. | Hearsay was not the sole basis; admissible as part of informal revocation proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ryan, 2007-Ohio-4743 (3d Dist. No. 14-06-55, 2007-Ohio-4743) (revocation hearings are not criminal trials; substantial proof standard applies)
- State v. Hylton, 1991-Ohio- (Ohio App. 3d (1991)) (revocation hearings exempt from criminal evidentiary rules)
- State v. Talty, 2004-Ohio-4888 (Ohio Sup. Ct. / 2004) (probation conditions must be reasonably related and not overbroad)
- State v. Jones, 1990-Ohio- (Ohio Sup. Ct. (1990)) (conditions must be clear and related to rehabilitation and crime prevention)
- Miller v. State, 1975-Ohio- (Ohio App. (1975)) (revocation proceedings permit flexible evidence; not a criminal trial)
- Columbus v. Bickel, 1991-Ohio- (Ohio App. 3d (1991)) (hearsay allowed in revocation hearings; reliability considered)
- Ohly v. State, 1991-Ohio- (Ohio App. 3d (1991)) (hearsay can be reversible if sole reliance for violation)