State v. HamptonState v. Hampton
Rendered on May 12, 2023
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by MICHAEL P. ALLEN, Attorney for Appellee
JOHNNA M. SHIA, Attorney for Appellant
TUCKER, J.
{¶ 1} Andre L. Hampton appeals from two judgments of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which revoked his community control sanctions in two separate cases upon a finding that he had violated the conditions of his community control. Following revocation, the court sentenced him to serve an aggregate 36-month prison
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In April 2021, Hampton was indicted on one count of possession of fentanyl, one count of possession of heroin and one count of possession of cocaine in Case No. 2021-CR-756. In September 2021, Hampton entered a plea of guilty to each of the three charges.
{¶ 3} On December 13, 2021, Hampton was indicted on one count of having weapons while under disability (prior drug conviction), one count of felony receiving stolen property, and one count of misdemeanor receiving stolen property for offenses that occurred in October 2021 in Case No. 2021-CR-3539. On December 22, 2021, Hampton entered guilty pleas to the first two counts, and the misdemeanor count was dismissed.
{¶ 4} On December 23, 2021, Hampton was sentenced to a five-year term of community control sanctions in each case, one of the conditions of which was attendance at the MonDay program. The judgment entries provided that violations of the community control sanctions could result in the imposition of an aggregate 48-month prison term.
{¶ 5} In April 2022, a notice of revocation of community control was filed in each case because Hampton had admitted to, and tested positive for, drug use resulting in his discharge from treatment at the MonDay Community Correctional Facility. In May 2022,
{¶ 6} On August 22, 2022, a second notice of revocation of community control was filed in both cases because Hampton had been unsuccessfully discharged from the STAR treatment facility. An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for September 21, 2022. On that date, Hampton, who was represented by counsel, entered an admission to the charged violations. The trial court found that Hampton was no longer amenable to community control sanctions and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of three years.
{¶ 7} Hampton appeals.
II. Admission
{¶ 8} Hampton‘s first assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ACCEPTED HAMPTON‘S ADMISSION OF A VIOLATION OF COMMUNITY CONTROL AND SENTENCED HIM TO PRISON, BECAUSE HIS ADMISSION WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY, NOR VOLUNTARILY ENTERED.
{¶ 9} Hampton claims that the trial court erred in accepting his admission to the alleged violations of his community control sanctions. In support, he contends that the
{¶ 10} We begin by noting that Ohio courts have repeatedly stated that a community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial. State v. Roberts, 2017-Ohio-481, 84 N.E.3d 339, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Cofer, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22798, 2009-Ohio-890, ¶ 12; State v. Parsons, 4th Dist. Athens No. 09CA4, 2009-Ohio-7068, ¶ 11; State v. Motz, 2020-Ohio-4356, 158 N.E.3d 641, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.). Accordingly, the requirements for a full
{¶ 11} Next, we note that the original judgment entries adequately explained the consequences of violating the terms and conditions of community control. Both indicated that violation of the terms and conditions of community control could result in an
{¶ 12} Further, we simply disagree with Hampton‘s claim that the record was unclear concerning what would occur upon his admission that he had violated the community control conditions. During a sidebar at the start of the hearing, defense counsel informed the court that Hampton had stated that he wanted to do “the three” if that option was “even on the table.” Tr. p. 2. The trial court then stated, on the record and in Hampton‘s presence, that defense counsel had stated that Hampton “intends to admit the violation with the understanding the Court would be sentencing him to a term of three years.” Tr. p. 3. Thereafter, Hampton answered affirmatively that he wanted to admit to a violation of the terms of his community control sanctions. The trial court went on to impose a three-year prison term with credit for 309 days served.
{¶ 13} The mere fact that counsel wanted the record to reflect Hampton‘s desire to remain on community control so that he could receive a third drug treatment opportunity does not mandate a conclusion that Hampton believed the court would do so.
{¶ 14} Because Hampton did not dispute the violation and there is no evidence to indicate he failed to understand the rights he waived when he readily admitted to the violations, we find this argument lacks merit. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.
III. Sentencing
HAMPTON‘S PRISON SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO LAW BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT STATE ON THE RECORD, NOR IN ITS SENTENCING ENTRY THAT IT CONSIDERED THE SENTENCING FACTORS PRIOR TO IMPOSING A PRISON TERM.
{¶ 16} In this assignment of error, Hampton claims that the trial court erred in sentencing because it failed to consider the principles and purposes of sentencing set forth in
{¶ 17} When a defendant violates the conditions of his community control, ”
{¶ 18} We find no merit to Hampton‘s argument that the trial court failed to consider
{¶ 19} Though the sentencing court in this case did not specifically refer to
{¶ 20} Hampton‘s sentence fell within the permissible statutory range and did not exceed the maximum prison term that was specified by the trial court at Hampton‘s initial sentencing. Furthermore, contrary to Hampton‘s assertions, the record reflects that the trial court considered the seriousness and recidivism factors of
{¶ 21} The second assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Conclusion
WELBAUM, P.J. and EPLEY, J., concur.