2022 Ohio 2745
Ohio2022Background
- In 2017 Yontz was charged with fifth-degree felony aggravated possession of drugs (nine oxycodone pills).
- In June 2019 he requested intervention-in-lieu-of-conviction (ILC); the trial court granted ILC on September 23, 2019, subjecting him to probation-like supervision, abstinence from alcohol/illegal drugs, and random testing.
- As part of intake, Yontz signed a county probation policy that prohibited Suboxone as an approved medication and required tapering off within 60–90 days if he had a Suboxone prescription.
- In March 2020 Yontz moved to modify his ILC terms to permit medically indicated Suboxone treatment, alleging violations of the ADA and equal protection; the trial court denied the motion.
- The court of appeals deemed the appeal moot (finding Yontz had completed the required taper and was no longer on Suboxone) and declined to reach the merits. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary review.
- The Supreme Court held the order denying modification is not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 and vacated the court of appeals’ judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Yontz) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order denying modification of ILC supervision terms is a final, appealable order | A person on supervision need not violate supervision conditions to challenge their legality; denying modification prevented him from continuing medically necessary Suboxone treatment (ADA/Equal Protection injury) | Appeal was moot because Yontz completed the probation-directed taper and was no longer on Suboxone; also argued he was not an ADA-protected person due to a positive THC test | The order denying modification of ILC terms is not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02; court of appeals’ judgment vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta, 176 N.E.3d 735 (2021) (final-order analysis is jurisdictional and may be addressed sua sponte)
- State v. White, 130 N.E.3d 247 (2019) (a valid judgment of conviction is a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2))
- In re B.D., 157 N.E.3d 400 (2020) (courts reject that intervention-in-lieu constitutes a final order because the statute is permissive)