Strongsville v. Feliciano, 2011 Ohio 5394

Strongsville sued Feliciano in the Eighth District of Ohio for appellate review of a Berea Municipal Court sentence.
Feliciano was charged with domestic violence; an order of protection required GPS monitoring during the case.
On Oct 13, 2010, Feliciano pled guilty to an amended misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge (R.C. 2917.11).
Sentencing on Dec 3, 2010 imposed $250 fine, 15 days in jail with credit, and one year of community control with conditions.
Conditions relevant here: random drug/alcohol testing, drug and mental health assessment, and staying away from his wife.
The Court of Appeals sustained Feliciano’s first assignment of error, reversed the first assigned sanctions, and remanded; second assignment deemed without merit; overall affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether drug/alcohol testing and assessment were valid sanctions	Strongsville; there was no nexus between the crime and drugs/alcohol.	Feliciano; court has broad discretion to impose rehabilitative sanctions.	The sanctions were an abuse of discretion; sustained.
Whether electronic monitoring was proper given lack of contact/danger evidence	Strongsville; monitoring may be warranted to protect the spouse.	Feliciano; no ongoing danger or contact evidence.	Without merit; journal entry did not order monitoring.

State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177 (2004-Ohio-4888) (probation conditions must aim to rehabilitate and not be overbroad)
State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51 (1990) (probation conditions relate to the crime and future conduct)
State v. Chavers, 2005-Ohio-714 (Ohio) (probation condition linked to alcohol use requires nexus)
State v. Wooten, 2003-Ohio-7159 (Ohio) (no alcohol/drug nexus supports probation requirements)
State v. Weimer, 2005-Ohio-2361 (Ohio) (upholding DUI-related restrictions when nexus exists)
State v. Madey, 2002-Ohio-5976 (Ohio) (alcohol abstinence condition upheld when history suggests problem)