State v. Williams
2020 Ohio 5228
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On December 13, 2011, Kayman Williams pled guilty to three counts of breaking and entering and was sentenced to five years of community control with general and special conditions.
- The probation department filed three violation notices over time; an earlier 2015 violation resulted in 14 days in jail but continuation of community control.
- A third violation filed January 3, 2020 alleged Williams had not reported to his probation officer since August 19, 2016 (over three and a half years), was behind on financial obligations, and failed to complete drug/alcohol treatment.
- At the January 13, 2020 hearing Williams admitted the violations and acknowledged he intentionally avoided reporting.
- The trial court concluded the prolonged failure to report amounted to nontechnical absconding, revoked community control, and imposed concurrent 12‑month prison terms (with credit for 107 days).
- Williams appealed, arguing (1) the 90‑day statutory cap on prison for technical violations applied, and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for not arguing the violation was technical.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams' prolonged failure to report was a "technical" violation such that R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i)'s 90‑day cap applied | The failure to report was a technical/administrative violation, so any prison term for the violation cannot exceed 90 days | The multi‑year refusal to report (and failure to comply with treatment) constituted nontechnical absconding and a breach of substantive rehabilitative conditions | Court held the violation was nontechnical (absconding/substantive), so the 90‑day cap did not apply; 12‑month sentence affirmed |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not arguing the violation was technical | Counsel was ineffective for failing to press the technical‑violation argument, prejudicing Williams | Because the violation was not technical, counsel's failure to make that argument was not deficient; no prejudice shown | Court held counsel was not ineffective: Williams cannot show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)