State v. Chavers, 07ca0065 (6-30-2008)State v. Chavers, 07ca0065 (6-30-2008)
{¶ 1} Appellant, Gregory Chavers (“Chavers“), appeals from the decision of the Wayne County Common Pleas Court. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶ 2} On September 8, 2006, in case number 06-CR-0392, Chavers wаs indicted on two counts of trafficking in drugs in the vicinity of a minor, in violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} On February 16, 2007, in case number 07-CR-0104, Chavers was indicted on one count of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} On May 23, 2007, a sentencing hearing was held. This hearing combined case numbers 06-CR-0392 and 07-CR-0104. Chavers was sentenced to 18 months of community control. On May 29, 2007, Chavers filed a notice of appeal. We dismissed his appeal, finding that the trial court had not issued a final, appealable order. On August 28, 2007, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc order, satisfying the requirements of a final, appealable order. On August 31, 2007, Chavers filed his notice of appeal. He has raised four assignments of error for our review. We have combined some assignments of error for ease of review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT LET THE PROBATION DEPT. GIVE CONDITION(S) THAT WAS NOT PART OF [CHAVERS‘] CRIME OR RAISED IN ANY OF THE SENTENCING PHASE[.]”
{¶ 5} In his first assignment of error, Chavers contends that the trial court erred when it let the probation department give conditions that were not part of his crime nor raised at the sentencing phase. We do not agree.
{¶ 6} We first note that Chavers argues that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, Chavers pled guilty to the charges below. “A guilty plea
{¶ 7} It appears that Chavеrs is challenging the reasonableness of his community control conditions. He argues that because he was convicted of drug related charges, the requirements that he obtain drug/alcohol counseling and submit to “periodic, random drug/alcohol testing” is unreasonable. Specifically, he states that “there is no rеlationship btween (sic) [his] conviction and the non-comsumption (sic) of alcohol, there is nothing at all in the record that alcohol was involved in the crime.”
{¶ 8} A trial court has broad discretion in imposing conditions of community control. Lakewood v. Hartman (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 275, 277. As such, the imposition of these conditions is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177, 2004-Ohio-4888, at ¶ 10. Abuse of discretion requires more than simply an error in judgment; it implies unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable conduct by the court. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.
{¶ 9} The reasonableness of community control conditions must be evaluated using the three-prong test set forth in State v. Jones (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 53. As such, this Court should
“consider whether the condition (1) is reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender, (2) has some relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, and (3) relates to conduct which is criminal or reasonаbly related to future criminality and serves the statutory ends of probation.” Id.
{¶ 10} In its sentencing entry, the trial court noted that “[t]he court has considered the pre-sentence report, the victim impact statement and the oral statements made during the sentencing hearing[.]” While the record before us does contain a transcript of the sentencing
{¶ 11} We have stated that when a presentence investigation was completed there is a presumption that the trial court utilized it in imposing its sentence. State v. O‘Neal (Sept. 29, 1999), 9th Dist. No. 19255, at *2, citing State v. Koons (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 289, 291. As Chavers has failed to include the presentence report in the record, we cannot properly rеview the underlying facts of this case. State v. Meyers, 9th Dist. No. 06CA0003, 2006-Ohio-5958, at ¶ 13. Accordingly, we have no choice but to presume the validity of the trial court‘s sentence. Id., citing State v. Cox (Apr. 12, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 19773, at *2. Accordingly, Chavers’ first assignment оf error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT LET THE PROBATION OFFICER SIGN [CHAVERS‘] NAME TO A[N] OFFICIAL DOCUMENT INWHICH (SIC) WAS NOT [CHAVERS‘] SIGNATURE BUT, THAT OF THE PROBATION OFFICER‘S SIGNATURE.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN THE PROBATION OFFICER CALLED [CHAVERS‘] DOCTOR AND ORDERED HIM TO STOP GIVING ANY TYPE OF MEDICATION(S) THAT WAS PERSCRIBED (SIC) TO [CHAVERS].”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT LET THE PROBATION OFFICER TESTIFY ABOUT THE 1ST AND 2ND URINE TESTS HAD IN THE PROBATION HEARING.”
{¶ 13} At the outset, we note that Chavers was sentenced on May 24, 2007. He filed his initial notice of appeal with this Court on May 29, 2007. In his notice, Chavers stated that he was appealing from thе judgment of the trial court in case numbers 06-CR-0392 and 07-CR-0104. Similarly, in his August 31, 2007 notice of appeal, Chavers stated that he was appealing from the judgment/conviction entered in case numbers 06-CR-0392 and 07-CR-0104.
{¶ 14} Throughout these three assignments of error, Chavers refers to community control violations that we deduce occurred after his sentenсe was imposed on May 24, 2007. Specifically, his second of assignment of error pertains to his “Departmental Reprimand for the wanton of a first violation” оf his probation. His fourth assignment of error requests this Court to review actions that occurred at the June 12, 2007 community control violation hearing.1 According to
“An appellate court “is without jurisdiction to review a judgment or оrder that is not designated in the appellant‘s notice of appeal. This promotes the purpose of
App.R. 3(D) : to notify potential appelleеs of an appeal and advise them as to what orders the appellant is appealing from.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) State v. Dixon, 9th Dist. No. 21463, 2004-Ohio-1593, at ¶ 7.
{¶ 15} As Chavers has nоt appealed from any orders relating to the community control violations referenced in his second, third, and fourth assignment of error, we find that we are
III.
{¶ 16} Chavers’ first assignment of error is overrulеd. We decline to address his second, third, and fourth assignments of error. The judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonаble grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to сarry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARR, P. J., SLABY, J., CONCUR.