State v. Clark

2024 Ohio 5554

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Clark, 2024-Ohio-5554.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 3-24-07 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

TIMOTHY CLARK, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 22-CR-0398

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: November 25, 2024

APPEARANCES:

Christopher Bazeley for Appellant

Ryan M. Hoovler for Appellee Case No. 3-24-07

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Timothy J. Clark (“Clark”) appeals the judgment

of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the trial court erred

by revoking his judicial release. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On May 25, 2023, Clark pled guilty to two counts of burglary in

violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2), fourth-degree felonies. The trial court ordered him

to serve a prison term of thirty-six months. On November 8, 2023, the trial court

granted a motion for judicial release that had been filed by Clark. On February 7,

2024, a notice was filed with the trial court that alleged Clark had violated three of

the conditions of his judicial release. On March 13, 2024, the trial court revoked

Clark’s judicial release and reimposed the remainder of his original term of

incarceration.

Assignment of Error

{¶3} Clark filed his notice of appeal on March 19, 2024. On appeal, he raises

the following assignment of error:

The trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the balance of Clark’s prison sentence for violations of the conditions of judicial release.

-2- Case No. 3-24-07

Standard of Review

{¶4} “A trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s judicial release based

on a violation of the conditions of his judicial release will not be disturbed absent

an abuse of discretion.” State v. Stokley, 2022-Ohio-3647, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.). An abuse

of discretion is not an error in judgment but is present where the trial court’s

determination was arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable. State v. Edwards,

2023-Ohio-3213, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). “When the abuse of discretion standard applies, an

appellate court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” State v.

Richey, 2021-Ohio-1461, ¶ 40 (3d Dist.).

Legal Standard

{¶5} R.C. 2929.20 is the provision that governs judicial release and reads, in

its relevant part, as follows:

If the court grants a motion for judicial release under this section, the court shall order the release of the eligible offender, shall place the eligible offender under an appropriate community control sanction, under appropriate conditions, and under the supervision of the department of probation serving the court and shall reserve the right to reimpose the sentence that it reduced if the offender violates the sanction. If the court reimposes the reduced sentence, it may do so either concurrently with, or consecutive to, any new sentence imposed upon the eligible offender as a result of the violation that is a new offense.

R.C. 2929.20(K). Thus, if the defendant violates the conditions of his release, the

trial court may reimpose the remainder of the defendant’s original term of

-3- Case No. 3-24-07

incarceration. State v. Phipps, 2021-Ohio-258, ¶ 22 (3d Dist.), quoting State v.

Mann, 2004-Ohio-4703, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.).

{¶6} “A defendant under community control [including community control

imposed under R.C. 2929.20(K)] is entitled to both a preliminary and a final

revocation hearing.” (Brackets sic.) State v. Lammie, 2022-Ohio-419, ¶ 13 (3d

Dist.), quoting State v. Kiser, 2009-Ohio-1337, ¶ 21 (5th Dist.).

‘The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine if probable cause exists to believe the defendant has violated the terms of his probation or community control.’ State v. Knerr, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-14-03, 2014-Ohio-3988, ¶ 14 * * *. “The purpose of the final revocation hearing is to give the defendant ‘an opportunity to be heard and to show’ that he either did not violate his conditions or that certain mitigating circumstances ‘suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation.’” Id., quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488, 92 S.Ct. 2593 (1972).

(Citation omitted.) Lammie at ¶ 13. “Importantly, ‘[w]hen the trial court is

reimposing the remainder of the defendant’s original sentence after revoking his

judicial release, the trial court need not make the statutory findings that are required

when a felony sentence is originally imposed.’” Stokley at ¶ 11, quoting State v.

Thompson, 2016-Ohio-8401, ¶ 14 (3d Dist.).

Legal Analysis

{¶7} On February 7, 2024, a probation officer appeared at a hearing before

the trial court and alleged that Clark violated the conditions of his judicial release

by (1) being charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or a

drug of abuse (“OVI”); (2) having consumed alcohol; and (3) testing positive for

-4- Case No. 3-24-07

methamphetamines. Based on the facts presented at the hearing, the trial court

found that probable cause supported these allegations.

{¶8} On March 13, 2024, Clark appeared at a hearing before the trial court

and admitted to violating the conditions of his judicial release. After giving Clark

an opportunity to speak, the trial court noted that, in addition to failing a drug test,

he had also been involved in an OVI. For this reason, the trial court concluded that

Clark’s sentence should be reimposed in the interests of public safety. Given these

facts, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to

revoke Clark’s judicial release. Accordingly, the sole assignment of error is

overruled.

Conclusion

{¶9} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas

is affirmed.

WALDICK and MILLER, J.J., concur.

/hls

-5-