[Cite as State v. Wolfe,

.]

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUDGES: STATE OF OHIO : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. John W. Wise, J Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : -vs- : : Case No. 18-CA-60 DAVID A. WOLFE : : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 17 CR 00491

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 7, 2019

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

WILLIAM HAYES NICHOLAS FAGNANO BY:PAULA SAWYERS Burkett & Sanderson, Inc. Licking County Prosecutor’s Office 73 North Sixth Street 20 S. Second Street, 4th Floor Newark, OH 43055 Newark, OH 43055 [Cite as State v. Wolfe,

.]

Gwin, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant David A. Wolfe [“Wolfe”] appeals the decision of the Court of

Common Pleas, Licking County, which sentenced him for community control violations.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On November 21, 2017, Wolfe pled guilty to three counts of Receiving

Stolen Property, felonies of the fifth degree. Wolfe was sentenced to three years of

Community Control sanctions. The trial court reserved a prison term of twelve months on

each count in the event Wolfe was to violate the terms and conditions of his Community

Control.1

{¶3} On March 15, 2018, Wolfe tested positive for Methamphetamine. Wolfe

admitted that he had used the drug on March 12, 2018. Further, a home check by Wolfe’s

probation officer revealed scales and drug masking agents.

{¶4} On May 2, 2018, Wolfe again tested positive for Methamphetamine. Wolfe

admitted using the drug on May 1, 2018. Further, Adult Court Services discovered text

messages in which Wolfe was attempting to contact known offenders in violation of his

community control. ACS also discovered messages that indicated Wolfe was contacting

incarcerated individuals.

{¶5} A Motion to Revoke Wolfe’s Community Control was filed May 8, 2019.

Wolfe through counsel stipulated to probable cause and admitted the violations.

Thereafter the trial court imposed a twelve-month sentence on each count to run

consecutive for an aggregate sentence of thirty-six months.

1 The judgment entry states, “The prison terms shall be served consecutively.” Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-60 3

Assignment of Error

{¶6} Wolfe raises one assignment of error,

{¶7} “I. THE SENTENCING COURT COMMITTED HARMFUL ERROR WHEN

IT IMPOSED THE FULL PRISON TERM ON EACH OF HIS THREE COUNTS FOR NON-

CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS AS THIS IS CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Law and Analysis

{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Wolfe maintains that the trial court erred

when it sentenced him to 12 months in prison on each count because under R.C.

2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) the court could only sentence him to a maximum prison term of 90

days. Specifically, Wolfe argues that his violations were “technical violations,” and thus,

the trial court could only sentence him to 90 days in prison under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i).

{¶9} R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i) provides:

(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:

(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 Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-60 4

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.

{¶10} The trial court made no specific finding concerning whether the court

considered Wolfe’s violations to be “technical” or “non-technical” either at the hearing or

in the subsequent judgment entry.

{¶11} This Court has previously considered the meaning of “technical violation”

pursuant to R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i),

The Eleventh Appellate District addressed R.C. 2929.15(B) in a case

where the defendant overdosed on heroin in violation of the terms of her

community control. State v. Cozzone, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2017-G-0141,

[––– N.E.3d ––––]. The defendant argued her community

control violation was technical in nature, and therefore, the maximum prison

term which could be imposed for the violation was 180 days. The appellate

court observed the term “technical violation” was not defined in R.C.

2929.15; however, other appellate districts had addressed “technical

violations” as they pertained to revocation of community control sanctions

and parole violations in cases predating the statutory amendment. Id. at ¶

38, citing State v. Cearfoss, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2004CA00085, 2004-Ohio-

7310 [

] (defendant’s failure to follow his probation officer’s

order to open the front door was a “technical violation”); State v. Jenkins,

2d Dist. Champaign No. 2005-CA-22,

[

]

(defendant’s failure to notify his parole officer before moving out of his Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-60 5

residence where a convicted felon resided was “at best a ‘technical’

violation”); and Amburgey v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 12th Dist. Madison

No. CA2001-07-016,

, * * * (“technical” violations, in the

context of parole, are those violations of the terms and conditions of the

parole agreement which are not criminal in nature, such as failure to report

to the parole officer, association with known criminals, leaving employment,

and leaving the state). The Cozzone court concluded overdosing on drugs

was criminal in nature and therefore could not be considered a “technical

violation” of community control.

.

State v. Mannah, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 17-CA-54,

.

{¶12} We note that, specifically, the court in Cozzone concluded, “[a]lthough

appellant was not charged or convicted for this conduct, overdosing on drugs is criminal

in nature and cannot be considered a “technical” violation of the terms and conditions of

community control.” Cozzone, ¶ 39. See, State v. Nelson, 2nd Dist. Champaign No.

2018-CA-5,

.

{¶13} The Supreme Court of Ohio has defined “ ‘technical violations’ [of parole]

as ‘those violations of the terms and conditions of the parole agreement which are not

criminal in nature[,] such as failure to report to the parole officer, association with known

criminals, leaving employment, leaving the State, etc.’” State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult

Parole Auth.,

,

(1993), quoting Inmates’

Councilmatic Voice v. Rogers,

(6th Dist. 1976).

{¶14} In the case at bar, Wolfe admitted to ingesting Methamphetamine on March

12, 2018. His Community Control officer did not immediately file a motion to revoke. Licking County, Case No. 18-CA-60 6

However, when Wolfe admitted that he again ingested Methamphetamine on May 1,

2018, a violation was filed. Although Wolfe was not charged or convicted for this conduct,

purchasing, possessing, and using a Schedule II, controlled substance is a felony criminal

offense. R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a)2. Therefore, it could not be considered a “technical

violation” of community control. State v. Cozzone, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2017-G-0141,

,

.

{¶15} Wolfe’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

{¶16} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

2 Methamphetamine is a Schedule II controlled substance. R.C. 3719.41, Schedule II, (C)(2).