State v. Harvey , 2022 Ohio 422 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Harvey, 2022-Ohio-422.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 3-21-09
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CEEJAY HARVEY, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 20-CR-0330
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: February 14, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Edwin M. Bibler for Appellant
Ryan M. Hoovler for Appellee
Case No. 3-21-09
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ceejay Harvey (“Harvey”) brings this appeal from
the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County imposing a prison
term for a violation of community control sanctions. Harvey claims on appeal that
the trial court erred by imposing a prison term instead of continuing community
control. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On October 28, 2020, Harvey entered a guilty plea to one count of
domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). Doc. 11. The trial court
sentenced Harvey to five years of community control and advised Harvey that if he
failed to abide by the community control sanctions, he could be sentenced to a prison
term of 36 months. Doc. 12. On June 1, 2021, a show cause motion was filed
alleging that Harvey violated three terms of his probation by absconding from
supervision since November 26, 2020, and tested positive on May 31, 2021 for
multiple illegal substances including methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl.
Doc. 14. The trial court held a motion on the hearing on June 30, 2021. Doc. 20.
Harvey admitted to the violations at the hearing. Doc. 20. The trial court then found
Harvey to be in violation and revoked the community control, imposing a prison
term of 24 months in prison. Doc. 20. Harvey appealed from this judgment and on
appeal raises the following assignment of error.
The trial court erred when it found that [Harvey] was no longer
amenable to community control sanctions and revoked
-2-
Case No. 3-21-09
[Harvey’s] community control and imposed a twenty-four (24)
month prison term.
{¶3} In the sole assignment of error, Harvey claims that he was amenable to
community control sanctions and the trial court erred in finding otherwise. The trial
court is guided as to what it can do if there is a violation of community control
conditions by R.C. 2929.15 which states in pertinent part as follows.
(B)(1) If the conditions of a community control sanction imposed
for a felony are violated or if the offender violates a law or leaves
the state without the permission of the court or the offender’s
probation officer, the sentencing court may impose on the violator
one or more of the following penalties.
(a) A longer time under the same sanction if the total time under
the sanctions does not exceed the five-year limit specified in
division (A) of this section;
(b) A more restrictive sanction under sections 2929.16, 2929.17,
or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, including but not limited to, a new
term in a community-based correctional facility, halfway house,
or jail pursuant to division (A)(6) of section 2929.16 of the Revised
Code;
(c) A prison term on the offender pursuant to sections 2929.14 of
the Revised Code and division (B)(3) of this section * * *;
***
(3) The prison term, if any, imposed on a violator pursuant to this
division and Division (B)(1) of this section shall be within the
range of prison terms described in this division and shall not
exceed the prison term specified in the notice provided to the
offender at the sentencing hearing pursuant to division (B)(2) of
section 2929.19 of the Revised Code. * * *
-3-
Case No. 3-21-09
R.C. 2929.15. Harvey was originally convicted of domestic violence, a felony of
the third degree. Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14, he was subject to a prison term of “nine,
twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, thirty, or thirty-six months.” R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b).
{¶4} Here, Harvey argues that the trial court erred because by the time of the
hearing, he was making progress by attending counseling as required. However,
this does not change the fact that Harvey admitted to three violations. Specifically,
Harvey admitted to violating 1) rule 2 by absconding supervision since November
16, 2020, without providing the supervising officer with his new residence; 2) rule
5 by failing to complete an anger management/violence assessment and comply with
all counseling recommendations; and 3) rule 7 by testing positive for amphetamine,
buprenorphine, methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, and fentanyl. Doc. 14.
According to his supervising officer, Harvey appeared for the initial visit, completed
the paperwork, “and then never came back.” Tr. 5. The trial court subsequently
determined that “based upon his behavior, he’s not amenable to community control.
I mean, he didn’t accomplish anything that’s positive on community control because
he never reported.” Tr. 7. Despite Harvey’s argument, the record shows that Harvey
only began working on the assessment and counseling requirements once he was
back in jail. Additionally, the sentence imposed by the trial court was within the
range permitted. The trial court indicated that it had considered the statutory factors
set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The trial court then imposed a prison term
lower than the one requested by the State. Given the record before this Court, there
-4-
Case No. 3-21-09
is no basis for holding that the trial court erred by revoking community control and
imposing a prison term. The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶5} Having found no prejudicial error in the particulars assigned and
argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County is
affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
MILLER and SHAW, J.J., concur.
/hls
-5-