[Cite as State v. Salett, 2019-Ohio-2637.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-18-62
v.
JOSHUA E. SALETT, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 17 11 0406
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: July 1, 2019
APPEARANCES:
Samantha L. Berkhofer for Appellant
Sarah J. Warren for Appellee Case No. 8-18-62
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Joshua E. Salett (“Salett”), brings this appeal from
the October 1, 2018, judgment of the Logan County Common Pleas Court revoking
his community control after Salett refused to enter a community-based correctional
facility (“CBCF”) as ordered under the specific terms and conditions of his
community control. On appeal, Salett argues that his failure to complete the
program at the CBCF was a “technical” violation of his community control, which
should not have allowed the imposition of his entire previously reserved prison term
of twenty-four months.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On November 9, 2017, a traffic stop was conducted in Bellefontaine,
Ohio, of a vehicle in which Salett was backseat passenger. During the course of the
traffic stop, officers learned that Salett had an outstanding warrant for his arrest.
Salett was removed from the vehicle and arrested on the outstanding warrant. He
was then searched incident to that arrest, and at that time Salett was found to be in
possession of a rock-like substance consistent with crack-cocaine and nine Schedule
II Adderall 30 mg pills.
{¶3} On April 10, 2018, Salett was indicted for Aggravated Possession of
Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the fifth degree, and Possession
-2- Case No. 8-18-62
of Cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the fifth degree. Salett
originally pled not guilty to the charges.
{¶4} On June 21, 2018, Salett entered into a written, negotiated plea
agreement wherein he agreed to plead guilty to the charges as indicted, and in
exchange the State agreed to stand silent at sentencing. It was also agreed that the
discretionary post-release control would not be imposed by the trial court. A
change-of-plea hearing was then held, wherein Salett knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently entered his guilty pleas and he was found guilty of the charges as
indicted.
{¶5} On July 31, 2018, the matter proceeded to sentencing. At the sentencing
hearing, the State remained silent as to any recommendation per the plea agreement;
however, the pre-sentence investigation writer indicated that Salett was not
amenable to community control because he committed the offenses in this case
while on post-release control for a prior felony, and because he had a “high” Ohio
Risk Assessment System (“ORAS”) score.
{¶6} Salett made a statement on his own behalf, indicating that he had
already been in jail for this crime awaiting trial and that he had also served time for
violating his post-release control in his prior case out of Cleveland. He argued that
a lengthy prison term would not assist in his rehabilitation. Therefore, he requested
a prison term of six months or less. In addition, though Salett acknowledged that
-3- Case No. 8-18-62
he had the drugs on him at the time of the traffic stop, he denied that they were his,
stating that the other people in the vehicle with him must have put them in his pocket
in the vehicle while he was sleeping.
{¶7} The trial court analyzed the applicable sentencing factors and indicated
that it was primarily concerned with Salett’s rehabilitation, being that Salett was
relatively young. The trial court thus disagreed with the pre-sentence investigation,
stating that providing further rehabilitative opportunity for Salett would be the
optimal outcome rather than prison. The trial court then placed Salett on community
control for five years on each count, to run concurrent with each other. As part of
Salett’s community control, the trial court ordered Salett to the West Central CBCF
to complete programming there.
{¶8} When the trial court stated that Salett would be sent to the CBCF, Salett
indicated that he felt like he did not need to go to West Central. He asked the trial
court if he would be punished if he withdrew from West Central, and the trial court
stated, “when you’re thinking about signing yourself out of West Central, I want
you to understand that is my goal: To get you back in Cleveland with a job, starting
a new life. If you sign yourself out, you’re telling me that you can’t do that. Do
you understand – so you asked me, are you going to be punished? I’m telling you
that’s the message you’re sending me.” (July 31, 2018, Tr. at 32).
-4- Case No. 8-18-62
{¶9} The trial court indicated that failure to complete a residential program
as ordered at West Central would be a violation of Salett’s community control. (Id.
at 30). The trial court further stated that the other remaining option other than the
CBCF was prison, but the trial court wanted to focus on rehabilitation rather than
punishment. Finally, Salett was notified that if he violated his community control,
he would be subject to a twelve-month prison term on each charge, to be served
consecutively, for an aggregate twenty-four month prison term.
{¶10} On August 8, 2018, Salett filed a “Motion for Furlough,” requesting
to be furloughed from his incarceration while space was being made for him to
attend West Central. Salett argued that his entrance assessment was scheduled for
the week of August 13 to August 17, that he now believed the court’s sentencing
decision was appropriate, and that West Central could be beneficial for him. He
argued that if he was released on furlough, he would report for an assessment and
to West Central as ordered. On August 14, 2018, Salett’s motion for furlough was
denied.
{¶11} It is undisputed that Salett then refused to enter the CBCF.
{¶12} On October 1, 2018, a visiting judge held a hearing that had originally
been styled as “resentencing.”1 At the inception of the hearing, however, the trial
1 On August 28, 2018, the record contains an assignment notice from the assignment commissioner stating that this matter was assigned for “resentencing” on September 18, 2018. The matter was continued to October 1, 2018.
-5- Case No. 8-18-62
court noted that the hearing was actually to determine if there was probable cause
to find that Salett had violated his community control based on his refusal to attend
West Central. Nevertheless, the trial court stated that a motion to revoke Salett’s
community control had not yet been filed by the State, thus the matter should be
continued so that Salett could be apprised of the specific allegation in writing. The
State indicated it could get a motion filed quickly, and Salett actually requested that
the matter be resolved that day, as he had family attending the hearing from
Cleveland present in the courtroom. Due to Salett’s request, the trial court recessed
so that the State could file the appropriate motion, and the matter proceeded later
the same day to hear the State’s newly filed motion to revoke Salett’s community
control.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Salett, 2019-Ohio-2637.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-18-62
v.
JOSHUA E. SALETT, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 17 11 0406
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: July 1, 2019
APPEARANCES:
Samantha L. Berkhofer for Appellant
Sarah J. Warren for Appellee Case No. 8-18-62
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Joshua E. Salett (“Salett”), brings this appeal from
the October 1, 2018, judgment of the Logan County Common Pleas Court revoking
his community control after Salett refused to enter a community-based correctional
facility (“CBCF”) as ordered under the specific terms and conditions of his
community control. On appeal, Salett argues that his failure to complete the
program at the CBCF was a “technical” violation of his community control, which
should not have allowed the imposition of his entire previously reserved prison term
of twenty-four months.
Relevant Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On November 9, 2017, a traffic stop was conducted in Bellefontaine,
Ohio, of a vehicle in which Salett was backseat passenger. During the course of the
traffic stop, officers learned that Salett had an outstanding warrant for his arrest.
Salett was removed from the vehicle and arrested on the outstanding warrant. He
was then searched incident to that arrest, and at that time Salett was found to be in
possession of a rock-like substance consistent with crack-cocaine and nine Schedule
II Adderall 30 mg pills.
{¶3} On April 10, 2018, Salett was indicted for Aggravated Possession of
Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the fifth degree, and Possession
-2- Case No. 8-18-62
of Cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the fifth degree. Salett
originally pled not guilty to the charges.
{¶4} On June 21, 2018, Salett entered into a written, negotiated plea
agreement wherein he agreed to plead guilty to the charges as indicted, and in
exchange the State agreed to stand silent at sentencing. It was also agreed that the
discretionary post-release control would not be imposed by the trial court. A
change-of-plea hearing was then held, wherein Salett knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently entered his guilty pleas and he was found guilty of the charges as
indicted.
{¶5} On July 31, 2018, the matter proceeded to sentencing. At the sentencing
hearing, the State remained silent as to any recommendation per the plea agreement;
however, the pre-sentence investigation writer indicated that Salett was not
amenable to community control because he committed the offenses in this case
while on post-release control for a prior felony, and because he had a “high” Ohio
Risk Assessment System (“ORAS”) score.
{¶6} Salett made a statement on his own behalf, indicating that he had
already been in jail for this crime awaiting trial and that he had also served time for
violating his post-release control in his prior case out of Cleveland. He argued that
a lengthy prison term would not assist in his rehabilitation. Therefore, he requested
a prison term of six months or less. In addition, though Salett acknowledged that
-3- Case No. 8-18-62
he had the drugs on him at the time of the traffic stop, he denied that they were his,
stating that the other people in the vehicle with him must have put them in his pocket
in the vehicle while he was sleeping.
{¶7} The trial court analyzed the applicable sentencing factors and indicated
that it was primarily concerned with Salett’s rehabilitation, being that Salett was
relatively young. The trial court thus disagreed with the pre-sentence investigation,
stating that providing further rehabilitative opportunity for Salett would be the
optimal outcome rather than prison. The trial court then placed Salett on community
control for five years on each count, to run concurrent with each other. As part of
Salett’s community control, the trial court ordered Salett to the West Central CBCF
to complete programming there.
{¶8} When the trial court stated that Salett would be sent to the CBCF, Salett
indicated that he felt like he did not need to go to West Central. He asked the trial
court if he would be punished if he withdrew from West Central, and the trial court
stated, “when you’re thinking about signing yourself out of West Central, I want
you to understand that is my goal: To get you back in Cleveland with a job, starting
a new life. If you sign yourself out, you’re telling me that you can’t do that. Do
you understand – so you asked me, are you going to be punished? I’m telling you
that’s the message you’re sending me.” (July 31, 2018, Tr. at 32).
-4- Case No. 8-18-62
{¶9} The trial court indicated that failure to complete a residential program
as ordered at West Central would be a violation of Salett’s community control. (Id.
at 30). The trial court further stated that the other remaining option other than the
CBCF was prison, but the trial court wanted to focus on rehabilitation rather than
punishment. Finally, Salett was notified that if he violated his community control,
he would be subject to a twelve-month prison term on each charge, to be served
consecutively, for an aggregate twenty-four month prison term.
{¶10} On August 8, 2018, Salett filed a “Motion for Furlough,” requesting
to be furloughed from his incarceration while space was being made for him to
attend West Central. Salett argued that his entrance assessment was scheduled for
the week of August 13 to August 17, that he now believed the court’s sentencing
decision was appropriate, and that West Central could be beneficial for him. He
argued that if he was released on furlough, he would report for an assessment and
to West Central as ordered. On August 14, 2018, Salett’s motion for furlough was
denied.
{¶11} It is undisputed that Salett then refused to enter the CBCF.
{¶12} On October 1, 2018, a visiting judge held a hearing that had originally
been styled as “resentencing.”1 At the inception of the hearing, however, the trial
1 On August 28, 2018, the record contains an assignment notice from the assignment commissioner stating that this matter was assigned for “resentencing” on September 18, 2018. The matter was continued to October 1, 2018.
-5- Case No. 8-18-62
court noted that the hearing was actually to determine if there was probable cause
to find that Salett had violated his community control based on his refusal to attend
West Central. Nevertheless, the trial court stated that a motion to revoke Salett’s
community control had not yet been filed by the State, thus the matter should be
continued so that Salett could be apprised of the specific allegation in writing. The
State indicated it could get a motion filed quickly, and Salett actually requested that
the matter be resolved that day, as he had family attending the hearing from
Cleveland present in the courtroom. Due to Salett’s request, the trial court recessed
so that the State could file the appropriate motion, and the matter proceeded later
the same day to hear the State’s newly filed motion to revoke Salett’s community
control.
{¶13} Salett ultimately admitted to failing to attend West Central, contending
that he did not think the courses in the program were necessary for him because he
had been through similar courses while previously incarcerated. He requested that
the trial court continue his community control. Salett’s attorney also attempted to
argue that failure to attend West Central was a mere “technical” violation of
community control, and that he should not receive a full prison term.
{¶14} The trial court found that the order for Salett to complete a term in
West Central was pivotal in the original sentence as an aspect of rehabilitation. The
trial court then determined that failure to attend the CBCF was more than a technical
-6- Case No. 8-18-62
violation, and found that it was appropriate to revoke Salett’s community control at
that time. Salett was sentenced to serve twelve months in prison on each count,
consecutive to each other, for an aggregate twenty-four month prison term. A
judgment entry memorializing his sentence was filed that same day. It is from this
judgment that Salett appeals, asserting the following assignment of error for our
review.
Assignment of Error Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion in sentencing Salett for a community control violation without proof of “substantial nature” of the violation?
{¶15} In Salett’s assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred by
sentencing him to prison for a community control violation that he contends was
only a “technical” violation.2 Salett argues that under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i), if a
community control violation is merely “technical,” any prison term imposed by the
trial court for the “technical” violation could not exceed “ninety days.”
Standard of Review
{¶16} The decision of a trial court to revoke community control will not be
disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Berry, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-12-
04, 2012-Ohio-4660, ¶ 33, citing State v. Ryan, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-06-55, 2007-
2 Salett’s argument in his brief focuses on the issue of whether his violation was “technical.” The statement of his assignment of error indicates that he was challenging whether there was proof of a “substantial nature,” but Salett admitted to the violation. Thus the only real question before us is whether the violation he admitted to was technical in nature.
-7- Case No. 8-18-62
Ohio-4743, ¶ 7. An abuse of discretion indicates that the trial court acted
unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio
St.3d 217, 219 (1983). When applying the abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing
court may not simply substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court.
Analysis
{¶17} On appeal, Salett argues that his community control violation for
failing to attend and complete the program at the CBCF was merely a “technical”
violation of community control, and thus his entire prison term could not be invoked
based upon R.C. 2929(B)(1)(c)(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 * * * the prison term shall not exceed ninety days.”) (Emphasis
added).
{¶18} Although “technical” violations of community control are not defined
by the legislature, Ohio Appellate Courts have determined that a “technical”
violation is “an administrative requirement facilitating community control
supervision.” State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2017-11-156, 2018-Ohio-
2672, ¶ 18; State v. Nelson, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2018-CA-5, 2018-Ohio-4763.
A non-technical violation is a violation of a “substantive rehabilitative requirement
which addressed a significant factor contributing to appellant’s criminal conduct.”
State v. Davis at ¶ 18.
-8- Case No. 8-18-62
{¶19} In this case, Salett was ordered to attend and complete West Central
CBCF as a specific condition of his community control. This was meant to address
any drug issues, and to help rehabilitate Salett. The trial court specifically stated as
much to Salett at the sentencing hearing.
{¶20} Facially, failing to complete the CBCF program would be more than
a technical violation as it was an integral part of the trial court’s sentence, made to
address Salett’s issues and help rehabilitate him. Thus we would readily categorize
it as more than a technical violation. In fact, many other Ohio Appellate Courts
have determined that failure to complete a CBCF program as ordered under
community control was more than a technical violation of community control. See,
e.g. State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2017-11-156, 2018-Ohio-2672; State
v. Mannah, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 17-CA-54, 2018-Ohio-4219; State v. Blake, 4th
Dist. Hocking No. 18CA6, 2018-Ohio-5413. Consistent with the other Ohio
Appellate Courts, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this
matter by finding that Salett’s failure to complete a program at the CBCF as ordered
was more than a technical violation.3 Therefore, Salett’s assignment of error is
overruled.
3 Any claim by Salett in his brief that his case is different from the prevailing caselaw is not well-taken. He bases his argument on the fact that in some of the other cases criminal defendants entered the program and then did not complete it, whereas here, Salett was never granted admission. The distinction makes no difference. Salett still failed to comply with a specific provision of his community control.
-9- Case No. 8-18-62
Conclusion
{¶21} For the foregoing reasons Salett’s assignment of error is overruled and
the judgment of the Logan County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur.
/jlr
-10-