State v. Cantrell , 2019 Ohio 4718 ( 2019 )

[Cite as State v. Cantrell, 2019-Ohio-4718.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARION COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 9-19-14
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
KEVIN CANTRELL, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 9-19-15
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
KEVIN CANTRELL, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 9-19-16
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
KEVIN CANTRELL, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
Appeals from Marion County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court Nos. 17-CR-505, 18-CR-157 and 18-CR-158
Judgments Affirmed
Date of Decision: November 18, 2019
APPEARANCES:
Thomas A. Gjostein for Appellant
Nathan Heiser for Appellee
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Kevin Cantrell (“Cantrell”), appeals the February
14, 2019 judgment entries of the Marion County Common Pleas Court revoking his
community control in three separate cases after Cantrell failed to comply with
specific terms and conditions of his community control sanctions. On appeal,
Cantrell argues that his conduct comprising the violations was non-criminal in
nature and amounted to mere “technical violations” of his community control.
Cantrell asserts that the trial court was not authorized to impose a prison term of
more than 180 days as a sanction for his violations under the sentencing limits in
R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c).
Case No. 2017 CR 0505
{¶2} On December 13, 2017, in case number 2017 CR 0505, the Marion
County Grand Jury returned a one count indictment against Cantrell alleging that he
-2-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
committed the offense of Receiving Stolen Property, in violation of R.C.
2913.51(A), a felony of the fourth degree. The charges stemmed from a report that
the Marion Police Department had received of a stolen vehicle. Law enforcement
located the vehicle the same day when it was observed travelling on a local road. A
brief chase ensued leading to the driver fleeing on foot. Shortly thereafter, the driver
of the vehicle was apprehended and identified as Cantrell.
{¶3} On December 18, 2017, Cantrell was arraigned and entered a plea of
not guilty. Cantrell was released on bond subject to certain terms and conditions.
Approximately a week later, a bench warrant was issued for Cantrell’s arrest
because he had committed another crime while on bond and had failed to report to
the probation department. A bond violation hearing was held. Cantrell’s bond was
revoked and the amount was reset.
{¶4} On February 1, 2018, Cantrell plead guilty to the fourth degree felony
offense stated in the indictment. The trial court accepted Cantrell’s plea and found
him guilty. The trial court transferred the case to a specialized drug treatment docket
subject to Cantrell’s compliance with specific terms and conditions of the program.
The trial court sentenced Cantrell to three years of community control sanctions.
The trial court notified Cantrell that if he violated the terms and conditions of his
community control an eighteen month prison term may be imposed.
{¶5} On May 16, 2018, the trial court issued an entry journalizing Cantrell’s
violation of his community control. The trial court noted that Cantrell waived a
-3-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
formal violation hearing and agreed to proceed with sanctions imposed by the
county adult probation department. These sanctions included 25 days in jail, a
completion of 80 hours of community service, residence in a sober living home for
120 days, and attendance of daily substance abuse meetings for the first two weeks.
{¶6} On May 29, 2018, the trial court issued a judgment entry stating that
Cantrell had produced a positive drug screen and was ordered to complete four hours
of community service by June 1, 2018.
{¶7} On June 5, 2018, a bench warrant was issued for Cantrell’s arrest based
upon allegations that Cantrell violated the terms of his community control. The trial
court held a hearing and found that Cantrell had violated the terms of his community
control by failing to: 1) obey all laws; 2) report to his probation officer; 3) submit
to drug or alcohol testing; and 4) live in the sober living home for at least 120 days.
The trial court ordered Cantrell’s community control sanctions to be extended for
six months and imposed additional terms and conditions. The trial court again
notified Cantrell that an eighteen month prison term may be imposed if he violated
the terms and conditions of his community control.
Case No. 18 CR 157
{¶8} On April 5, 2018, in Case No. 18 CR 157, the Marion County Grand
Jury returned a two count indictment against Cantrell alleging he committed the
offenses of Receiving Stolen Property, in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), a felony of
the fourth degree, and Receiving Stolen Property, in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A),
-4-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
a felony of the fifth degree. The charges stemmed from a report received by the
Marion Police Department of a stolen truck, which was eventually returned to its
rightful owner. However, the owner of the vehicle reported that a large amount of
tools was also stolen from the vehicle. Law enforcement was contacted by a
confidential informant who claimed that Cantrell had admitted to stealing the
vehicle and had attempted to sell the tools to the informant. The informant indicated
that Cantrell had later abandoned the truck after selling the tools.
{¶9} On April 9, 2018, Cantrell was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty,
and was released on bond.
{¶10} On June 15, 2018, Cantrell plead guilty to one count of fourth degree
felony Receiving Stolen Property. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the
State agreed to nolle prosequi the fifth degree felony Receiving Stolen Property
charge listed in the indictment. The trial court accepted Cantrell’s guilty plea, and
placed the case on a specialized drug treatment docket subject to Cantrell’s
compliance with certain terms and conditions.
{¶11} On July 3, 2018, the trial court sentenced Cantrell to three years of
community control. The trial court notified Cantrell that if he violated the terms
and conditions of his community control a fifteen month prison term may be
imposed.
-5-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
Case No. 18 CR 158
{¶12} On April 5, 2018, in Case No. 18 CR 158, the Marion County Grand
Jury returned a two count indictment against Cantrell alleging he committed the
offense of Possession of Drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A),(C)(2)(a), a felony
of the fifth degree. The allegations stemmed from an incident at the Multi-County
Correctional Center, where Cantrell was incarcerated. Authorities at the facility
reported strange behavior from Cantrell, which culminated in a struggle with other
inmates. During this physical altercation, Cantrell threw two bags of suspected
illegal substances from his person. The substances were later determined to be a
Schedule III narcotic. Cantrell was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, and was
released on bond.
{¶13} On June 15, 2018, Cantrell pled guilty to the charge listed in the
indictment. The trial court accepted Cantrell’s guilty plea, and placed the case on a
specialized drug treatment docket subject to Cantrell’s compliance with certain
terms and conditions.
{¶14} On July 3, 2018, the trial court sentenced Cantrell to three years of
community control sanctions. The trial court notified Cantrell that if he violated the
terms and conditions of his community control a nine month prison term may be
imposed.
-6-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
Underlying Community Control Violations and Revocations
{¶15} On January 24, 2019, Cantrell’s probation officer filed, in all three
cases, a notice informing the trial court of his belief that Cantrell had violated the
terms and conditions of his community control. Specifically, Cantrell was alleged
to have failed to: 1) report to his probation officer; 2) submit to drug or alcohol
testing; and 3) not purchase, possess, or consume any type of alcoholic beverages
or illegal drugs. The allegations were premised upon Cantrell failing to report to
his probation officer as instructed, refusing to submit to a drug test when requested
on January 10, 2019, and then testing positive for illegal drugs on a test given
January 14, 2019.
{¶16} On February 1, 2019, Cantrell appeared for a hearing on the revocation
issue where he admitted to the violations and requested a bifurcated hearing.
{¶17} On February 12, 2019, Cantrell appeared for disposition on the
violations. The trial court revoked Cantrell’s community control sanctions in all
three cases. The trial court imposed the eighteen month prison term in Case No.
2017 CR 0505 and the fifteen month prison term in Case No. 18 CR 157 to run
consecutive to one another for a total term of thirty three months. The trial court
also imposed the nine month prison term in Case No. 18 CR 158, but ordered that
prison term to run concurrent to the prison terms imposed in the other two cases.
Cantrell was granted 324 days of jail time credit in Case No. 2017 CR 0505.
-7-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
{¶18} It is from this judgment entry that Cantrell now appeals, asserting the
following assignment of error.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REVOKING APPELLANT’S
PROBATION FOR A TECHNICAL VIOLATION WHICH IS
PROHIBITED PURSUANT TO REVISED CODE SECTION §
2929.15(B)(1)(C)(i)&(ii).
{¶19} In his sole assignment of error, Cantrell contends that his violations
were “non-criminal” in nature and merely “technical violations.” As such, Cantrell
argues that the trial court erred when it imposed prison terms of eighteen, fifteen,
and nine months as a sanctions for his violations because R.C. 2929.15(B) limits a
trial court’s authority to impose a prison term for a “technical violation” of
community control to 180 days.
Relevant Legal Authority
{¶20} R.C. 2929.15(B) governs the penalties available to the sentencing
court when an offender violates community control. In 2017, the Ohio legislature
amended R.C. 2929.15(B) to place limitations on prison terms imposed for
violations of a community control sanction for certain fourth or fifth degree felonies.
See 2017 H.B. 49 (“H.B. 49”). Specifically, R.C. 2929.15(B) states in pertinent
part:
(B)(1) If the conditions of a community control sanction 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 upon the violator one or more of the
following penalties:
-8-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
***
(c) A prison term on the offender pursuant to section 2929.14 of
the Revised Code and division (B)(3) of this section, provided
that a prison term imposed under this division is subject to the
following limitations, as applicable:
(i) If the prison term is imposed for any technical violation of
the conditions of a community control sanction imposed for a
felony of the fifth degree or for any violation of law committed
while under a community control sanction imposed for such a
felony that consists of a new criminal offense and that is not a
felony, the prison term shall not exceed ninety days.
(ii) If the prison term is imposed for any technical violation of
the conditions of a community control sanction imposed for a
felony of the fourth degree that is not an offense of violence
and is not a sexually oriented offense or for any violation of
law committed while under a community control sanction
imposed for such a felony that consists of a new criminal
offense and that is not a felony, the prison term shall not
exceed one hundred eighty days.
R.C. 2929.15(B)(1).
{¶21} As clearly stated, the sentencing limitations set forth in R.C.
2929.15(B)(1)(c) apply only to “technical violations.” However, the term
“technical” is not defined in the statute. Cantrell asserts that technical violations are
those violations of community control which are “non-criminal” in nature.
Cantrell’s argument is based on the definition set forth in State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio
Adult Parole Auth., 66 Ohio St. 3d 121, 124 (1993), citing Inmates' Councilmatic
Voice v. Rogers, 541 F.2d 633 (6th Cir.1976) (“Technical violations are those
violations of the terms and conditions of the parole agreement which are not
-9-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
criminal in nature such as failure to report to the parole officer, association with
known criminals, leaving employment, leaving the State, etc.”).
{¶22} However, we agree with the First District that Taylor and Inmates
Councilmatic are not dispositive of this issue because those cases did not involve
technical violations under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c). State v. Kernall, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-180613, 2019-Ohio-3070, ¶ 15.
{¶23} Moreover, several Appellate Districts have examined the term
“technical violation” under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c) in the context of a defendant
arguing that the violation was “non-criminal” in nature and therefore the sentencing
limitations applied. For instance, in State v. Nelson, the Second District determined
that the term “technical” implies it has meaning distinct from “non-criminal”
violations. Nelson, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2018-CA-5, 2018-Ohio-4763, ¶ 30,
citing State v. Mannah, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 17-CA-54, 2018-Ohio-4219, ¶ 14
(“Had the legislature intended R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) to apply to all violations of
community control which were noncriminal in nature, it could have specifically
stated so in the statute.”).
{¶24} Following Fifth and Twelfth District jurisprudence, the court in
Nelson adopted a bright-line rule distinguishing between “ ‘an administrative
requirement facilitating community control supervision,’ ” the violation of which
would be “technical,” and “ ‘a substantive rehabilitative requirement which
addressed a significant factor contributing to appellant’s criminal conduct,’ ” the
-10-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
violation of which would be “non-technical.” Nelson at ¶ 32, citing State v.
Mannah, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 17-CA-54, 2018-Ohio-4219; State v. Davis, 12th
Dist. Warren No. CA2017-11-156, 2018-Ohio-2672. Based on this distinction, the
court in Nelson held that the defendant’s violation of his community control, which
required him to have no contact with a certain individual, was specifically tailored
to the defendant to address his problematic consumption of alcohol and even though
“non-criminal” in nature was a “non-technical” violation for purposes of R.C.
2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii).1
{¶25} The Sixth District in examining this issue further observed that
“common sense and the evident purpose for trial courts to retain broad discretion to
both determine revoking a community control sanction and then to fashion an
appropriate sanction for that violation lead us to view the General Assembly did not
intend ‘technical violations’ to impede a court’s discretion to sanction under the
totality of the circumstances to specifically tailor substantive rehabilitative
requirements designed to address the offender’s conduct.” State v. Calhoun, 6th
Dist. Wood No. WD-17-067, 2019-Ohio-228, ¶ 30. The court in Calhoun adopted
the rationale set forth by the Fourth, Fifth, and Twelfth Districts finding that a
defendant’s violation of a specifically-tailored condition cannot be considered a
technical violation of community control because “ ‘the special condition was a
1
Notably, the Supreme Court of Ohio has recently accepted jurisdictional review of this issue in Nelson. See,
State v. Nelson, 155 Ohio St. 3d 1412, 2019-Ohio-1205.
-11-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
substantive rehabilitative requirement which addressed a significant factor
contributing to appellant’s criminal conduct.’ ” Id., citing Davis at ¶ 18; Nelson at
¶ 32; Abner, 4th Dist. Adams Nos. 18CA1061, 2018-Ohio-4506, at ¶ 13; Mannah
at ¶ 13. We agree with the approach taken by these courts.
Discussion
{¶26} Turning now to the facts presented in the instant case. The record
indicates that Cantrell’s chronic drug addiction contributed to him committing the
offenses for which he was placed on community control in each of the three cases.
The trial court attempted to assist Cantrell in addressing his drug addiction by
placing the cases on a specialized drug treatment docket, and imposing terms and
conditions of his community control sanctions focusing on drug abuse
rehabilitation. Cantrell first violated the terms and conditions of his community
control sanctions in Case No. 2017 CR 0505 when he was arrested for Criminal
Trespass, failed to report to his probation officer, failed to submit to drug or alcohol
testing, and refused to live in the sober living home for at least 120 days. Instead of
revoking his community control sanctions and removing his cases from the
specialized docket, the trial court extended Cantrell’s term of community control
for six months.
{¶27} Nearly eight months later, Cantrell admitted to violating the terms of
his community control which required him to report to his probation officer, submit
to drug or alcohol testing, and not to purchase, possess, or consume any type of
-12-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
alcoholic beverages or illegal drugs. At the revocation hearing, the trial court
addressed Cantrell and elaborated upon his conduct comprising the violations of his
community control:
Trial Court: [T]he thing that most irks me about your violations
and the things you did to find yourself here today are—was that
you were involved in drug use with other people in my [drug
court] program. And to me, that’s the cardinal sin. Under—you
know, there’s a lot of self-destructive behavior amongst addicts
and so I can forgive that. But when you tear down—where you
enable the other people who are—I’m trying to help, by using
with them, that’s the thing that I just lose patience with. Because
endangering yourself is—is one thing. Endangering the public in
general is one thing. But trying to tear down people who are at
their weakest moments and are asking for help, and this Court
has spent—(inaudible)—to help those people, is the thing that
just—which makes you different in my eyes. You know, to be real
frank, I’m not happy that you appear to use the program as some
sort of dating service either. You seem to have been involved with
several of the ladies in the program and I don’t—I think that
interferes with people’s recovery as well. But that’s not why I’m
doing what I’m doing. It’s the fact that you chose to party with
people in that program and especially the one that just graduated,
which was a really bad choice for everybody. She worked really
hard to get to that point and I’m not saying you’re responsible for
her choices, she is. But, just like you—you know, you’ve been the
program long enough to know that you can help each and be
supportive of each other or you can also be, you know—
encouragement to make bad decisions for each other and support
each other in the wrong way. I see a lot of that going on.
I recognize what [Defense Counsel is] saying. These folks who are
in these specialized dockets and Drug Courts, not only the Court,
Probation Department, but their own attorneys pour a lot of
themselves into. Counsel like [Defense Counsel], who really
advocates and begs, pleads; whatever he needs to get people into
this limited space program that the Court –(inaudible). And when
people with three cases get into it and are given multiple chances,
he’s really gone out—in some ways he put his own credibility on
-13-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
the line with the Court. I know—I don’t hold that against
[Defense Counsel] or any other attorney that does that. I’m just
saying you really had the best representation that we have here in
Marion county.
(Rev. Hrg., Feb. 12, 2019 at 4-5).
{¶28} The trial court then announced its decision to revoke Cantrell’s
community control in all three cases and to impose the prison terms notified on
record at the time Cantrell was placed on community control. The trial court
encouraged Cantrell to take seriously the drug rehabilitation programs offered in
prison and informed him that the court would “leave the door open to judicial
release.” (Id. at 7).
{¶29} We agree with the rationale utilized by the Sixth District in Calhoun
that the intent of the Legislature in creating the sentencing limitations in R.C.
2929.15(B)(1)(c) was not to impede a court’s discretion to devise a sanction under
the totality of the circumstances to specifically tailor substantive rehabilitative
requirements designed to address the offender’s conduct. Here, the trial court
fashioned community control terms and conditions to specifically address Cantrell’s
substance abuse and addiction, which evidentially was the underlying cause of most
of his criminal conduct. The record indicates that the trial court gave Cantrell ample
opportunity to avail himself of the rehabilitative resources provided by the trial court
including placing Cantrell’s cases on a specialized docket with limited space for
participants. Instead, Cantrell not only refused to reform and to further engage in
-14-
Case Nos. 9-19-14, 9-19-15 and 9-19-16
his destructive behavior and drug use, but he also undermined the success of other
participants in the drug court program.
{¶30} Accordingly, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s
finding that Cantrell’s conduct constituted more than mere “technical violations,”
but rather amounted to serious infractions warranting the revocation of his
community control sanctions.
{¶31} Based on the foregoing, the assignment of error is overruled and the
judgments and sentences of the trial court are affirmed.
Judgments Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur.
/hls
-15-