[Cite as State v. Thoman, 2024-Ohio-2219.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 3-23-43 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT THOMAN, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 23-CR-0099
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: June 10, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Christopher Bazeley for Appellant
Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee Case No. 3-23-43
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Robert Thoman (“Thoman”) brings this appeal
from the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas finding that
Thoman had violated his community control, revoking his community control, and
sentencing Thoman to 17 months in prison. On appeal Thoman claims that the trial
court’s judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons set
forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On May 17, 2023, Thoman entered a guilty plea to one count of
domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a felony of the fourth degree.
The trial court sentenced Thoman to five years of community control and reserved
a prison term of 6-18 months. On October 2, 2023, a notice of violation was filed
with the trial court. The notice alleged that Thoman violated a protection order by
entering the residence of his victim in the domestic violence offense and by refusing
to submit to a requested drug screen. A hearing on the violation was held on
November 6, 2023. The trial court found that Thoman had violated his community
control and then revoked the community control. The trial court then ordered
Thoman to serve 17 months in prison. Thoman appealed from this judgment. On
appeal, Thoman raised one assignment of error.
The trial court’s finding that Thoman violated the terms of his community control is against the weight of the evidence.
-2- Case No. 3-23-43
{¶3} The sole assignment of error claims that the trial court’s findings were
against the manifest weight of the evidence. A trial court’s finding of a community
control violation will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v.
Sandlin, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-21-10, 2022-Ohio-570, ¶ 15. “An abuse of
discretion suggests that a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.”
Id.
{¶4} To show a community control violation, the State must show
“substantial” evidence that the offender violated one of the terms of the community
control sanctions. Id. The State in this case alleged that Thoman had violated the
first, fifth, and seventh conditions of his community control. The first condition
required Thoman to comply with all federal, state, and local laws. The fifth
condition prohibited Thoman from having contact with the victim from the domestic
violence conviction. The State alleged that he had violated R.C. 2919.27 by having
contact with the victim when he entered the victim’s residence on October 1, 2023.
The seventh condition was that Thoman would submit to drug testing when
requested. The State alleged that Thoman violated this condition by refusing to
submit to a requested drug test on October 2, 2023.
{¶5} While neither brief sets forth facts that clearly support the violation, a
review of the transcript presents a clearer picture. At the hearing for the community
control violation, the State presented testimony of Officer Christopher Heydinger
(“Heydinger”), who was Thoman’s probation officer. Heydinger testified that
-3- Case No. 3-23-43
Thoman was notified that he was not allowed to have contact with the victim of the
offense on May 18, 2023. Heydinger also testified that Thoman was notified that
he was required to submit to random drug screens. On October 2, 2023, Heydinger
noticed that Thoman was listed as an inmate at the Crawford County Jail after being
arrested for a probation violation. Heydinger identified Ex. A. as the Bucyrus Police
Department’s Investigation Report from the incident.
{¶6} Exhibit A indicated that a caller had witnessed a male throw a female
into the house while the female was yelling for help. After the two were in the
home, the caller could still hear the woman yelling for help. When the officer
arrived at the home, the officer could hear a woman yelling inside. The officer
knocked at the door and the yelling stopped. The victim “answered the door and
advised [Thoman] was at the house when she returned home and that she [had] a no
contact order in place with him.” Ex. A at 5. The victim claimed Thoman had left
and that she was yelling at the phone. The officer then asked the victim to show
him her phone, but she was unable to find it. While in the home, the officer heard
a loud thud and asked the victim for permission to search the home, which was
given. Thoman was found hiding in the attic. The Exhibit was accepted into
evidence without objection.
{¶7} Once Heydinger learned that Thoman was in jail, Heydinger requested
that Thoman submit to a drug screen while at the jail. A staff member from the
county jail called Heydinger to notify him that Thoman had refused the test.
-4- Case No. 3-23-43
Thoman had a history of drug usage. On cross-examination, Heydinger admitted
that the notice of violation occurred based upon the police report and the hearsay
statements of the jail staff.
{¶8} Thoman presented the testimony of his mother Sandra McGuire
(“McGuire”). McGuire testified that Thoman and the victim had bought the
residence at issue together, so he is a part owner. McGuire claimed that the victim
told McGuire the victim would not be there that day. McGuire sent Thoman over
to fix the furnace. McGuire said the victim consented to Thoman being there when
the victim was gone. No one knew that the victim would be there when Thoman
was there.
{¶9} After the testimony, the trial court found that there was no violation of
statute because R.C. 2919.27 did not apply in this case. However, there was a court
order to have no contact with the victim, which Thoman violated by going to the
house. The court order specifically said that Thoman was to have no contact with
the victim and specified that the order applied “even with the person’s permission.”
Thus, the trial court found that Thoman had violated the first and fifth conditions of
his community control. Additionally, the trial court found that Thoman had violated
the seventh condition by refusing the drug screen.
{¶10} Thoman argues that the judgment is not supported by the weight of the
evidence because Heydinger was not testifying of his personal knowledge and the
evidence was all hearsay. However, community control revocation hearings are not
-5- Case No. 3-23-43
subject to the rules of evidence and hearsay evidence is admissible. State v.
Westrick, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-10-12, 2011-Ohio-1169, ¶ 24.
The rationale behind this exception is, given the informality of this type of proceeding, the trier of fact should be able to consider any reliable and relevant evidence to determine whether the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation. * * * Indeed, hearsay evidence can be permissible in a community-control- revocation hearing, even if it would have been inadmissible in a criminal trial.
State v. Blankenship, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-21-20, 2022-Ohio-1808, ¶ 16
(citations omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Thoman, 2024-Ohio-2219.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 3-23-43 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT THOMAN, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 23-CR-0099
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: June 10, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Christopher Bazeley for Appellant
Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee Case No. 3-23-43
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Robert Thoman (“Thoman”) brings this appeal
from the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas finding that
Thoman had violated his community control, revoking his community control, and
sentencing Thoman to 17 months in prison. On appeal Thoman claims that the trial
court’s judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the reasons set
forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On May 17, 2023, Thoman entered a guilty plea to one count of
domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a felony of the fourth degree.
The trial court sentenced Thoman to five years of community control and reserved
a prison term of 6-18 months. On October 2, 2023, a notice of violation was filed
with the trial court. The notice alleged that Thoman violated a protection order by
entering the residence of his victim in the domestic violence offense and by refusing
to submit to a requested drug screen. A hearing on the violation was held on
November 6, 2023. The trial court found that Thoman had violated his community
control and then revoked the community control. The trial court then ordered
Thoman to serve 17 months in prison. Thoman appealed from this judgment. On
appeal, Thoman raised one assignment of error.
The trial court’s finding that Thoman violated the terms of his community control is against the weight of the evidence.
-2- Case No. 3-23-43
{¶3} The sole assignment of error claims that the trial court’s findings were
against the manifest weight of the evidence. A trial court’s finding of a community
control violation will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v.
Sandlin, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-21-10, 2022-Ohio-570, ¶ 15. “An abuse of
discretion suggests that a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.”
Id.
{¶4} To show a community control violation, the State must show
“substantial” evidence that the offender violated one of the terms of the community
control sanctions. Id. The State in this case alleged that Thoman had violated the
first, fifth, and seventh conditions of his community control. The first condition
required Thoman to comply with all federal, state, and local laws. The fifth
condition prohibited Thoman from having contact with the victim from the domestic
violence conviction. The State alleged that he had violated R.C. 2919.27 by having
contact with the victim when he entered the victim’s residence on October 1, 2023.
The seventh condition was that Thoman would submit to drug testing when
requested. The State alleged that Thoman violated this condition by refusing to
submit to a requested drug test on October 2, 2023.
{¶5} While neither brief sets forth facts that clearly support the violation, a
review of the transcript presents a clearer picture. At the hearing for the community
control violation, the State presented testimony of Officer Christopher Heydinger
(“Heydinger”), who was Thoman’s probation officer. Heydinger testified that
-3- Case No. 3-23-43
Thoman was notified that he was not allowed to have contact with the victim of the
offense on May 18, 2023. Heydinger also testified that Thoman was notified that
he was required to submit to random drug screens. On October 2, 2023, Heydinger
noticed that Thoman was listed as an inmate at the Crawford County Jail after being
arrested for a probation violation. Heydinger identified Ex. A. as the Bucyrus Police
Department’s Investigation Report from the incident.
{¶6} Exhibit A indicated that a caller had witnessed a male throw a female
into the house while the female was yelling for help. After the two were in the
home, the caller could still hear the woman yelling for help. When the officer
arrived at the home, the officer could hear a woman yelling inside. The officer
knocked at the door and the yelling stopped. The victim “answered the door and
advised [Thoman] was at the house when she returned home and that she [had] a no
contact order in place with him.” Ex. A at 5. The victim claimed Thoman had left
and that she was yelling at the phone. The officer then asked the victim to show
him her phone, but she was unable to find it. While in the home, the officer heard
a loud thud and asked the victim for permission to search the home, which was
given. Thoman was found hiding in the attic. The Exhibit was accepted into
evidence without objection.
{¶7} Once Heydinger learned that Thoman was in jail, Heydinger requested
that Thoman submit to a drug screen while at the jail. A staff member from the
county jail called Heydinger to notify him that Thoman had refused the test.
-4- Case No. 3-23-43
Thoman had a history of drug usage. On cross-examination, Heydinger admitted
that the notice of violation occurred based upon the police report and the hearsay
statements of the jail staff.
{¶8} Thoman presented the testimony of his mother Sandra McGuire
(“McGuire”). McGuire testified that Thoman and the victim had bought the
residence at issue together, so he is a part owner. McGuire claimed that the victim
told McGuire the victim would not be there that day. McGuire sent Thoman over
to fix the furnace. McGuire said the victim consented to Thoman being there when
the victim was gone. No one knew that the victim would be there when Thoman
was there.
{¶9} After the testimony, the trial court found that there was no violation of
statute because R.C. 2919.27 did not apply in this case. However, there was a court
order to have no contact with the victim, which Thoman violated by going to the
house. The court order specifically said that Thoman was to have no contact with
the victim and specified that the order applied “even with the person’s permission.”
Thus, the trial court found that Thoman had violated the first and fifth conditions of
his community control. Additionally, the trial court found that Thoman had violated
the seventh condition by refusing the drug screen.
{¶10} Thoman argues that the judgment is not supported by the weight of the
evidence because Heydinger was not testifying of his personal knowledge and the
evidence was all hearsay. However, community control revocation hearings are not
-5- Case No. 3-23-43
subject to the rules of evidence and hearsay evidence is admissible. State v.
Westrick, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-10-12, 2011-Ohio-1169, ¶ 24.
The rationale behind this exception is, given the informality of this type of proceeding, the trier of fact should be able to consider any reliable and relevant evidence to determine whether the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation. * * * Indeed, hearsay evidence can be permissible in a community-control- revocation hearing, even if it would have been inadmissible in a criminal trial.
State v. Blankenship, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-21-20, 2022-Ohio-1808, ¶ 16
(citations omitted). The trial court has the sound discretion to determine the
trustworthiness of the hearsay evidence presented. State v. Mullins, 3d Dist.
Crawford No. 3-22-28, 2022-Ohio-4686, ¶ 8. “However, ‘[t]he introduction of
hearsay evidence into a revocation hearing is reversible error when that evidence is
the only evidence presented and is crucial to a determination of a * * * violation.’”
Id. at ¶ 9 quoting State v. Stringer, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29069, 2021-Ohio-
2608, ¶ 14.
{¶11} Here, the testimony presented by the State was all based upon hearsay
evidence. However, Thoman presented the testimony of McGuire who testified that
Thoman had gone to the home with the permission of the victim. This testimony
confirms that presented by the State that Thoman had violated the first and fifth
conditions of his community control as the no contact order specified that if Thoman
were to encounter the victim accidentally, he “must depart immediately.” Given the
evidence before it, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Thoman
-6- Case No. 3-23-43
had violated the terms of his community control by going to the victim’s residence.
The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶12} 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
-7-