State v. Collier-Green , 2023 Ohio 2143 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Collier-Green, 2023-Ohio-2143.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-220528
TRIAL NO. B-2006834
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
O P I N I O N.
EDDIE COLLIER-GREEN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 28, 2023
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Roger Kirk, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BOCK, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Eddie Collier-Green appeals the trial court’s
judgment revoking his community control and imposing a maximum sentence on the
underlying charges. Collier-Green argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
imposing the maximum sentence for a technical violation of community control and
that the trial court did not fully advise him that it would impose the maximum
sentence for a technical violation at his sentencing hearing. We disagree with Collier-
Green’s arguments and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Facts and Procedure
{¶2} Collier-Green and his family, who lived in New York, were visiting
Hamilton County, Ohio, in January 2021. During the trip, police approached Collier-
Green’s car, found an open container of alcohol, searched his car, and found drugs in
the car. The state charged Collier-Green with trafficking in drugs, aggravated
possession of drugs, and possession of hashish.
{¶3} A few months later, Collier-Green and the state entered into a plea
agreement whereby he pleaded guilty to the trafficking charge, a fourth-degree felony.
The remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced Collier-Green to two
years of community control with intensive supervision. The court informed Collier-
Green that if he violated community control, it could incarcerate him in jail for six
months, or send him to prison for a year and a half. The court further informed Collier-
Green that he would have to serve the full year and a
half, and upon release, he could be on postrelease control for three years. The court
advised Collier-Green about the penalty for violating or incurring felony charges while
on postrelease control.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶4} In April 2021, the court placed Collier-Green’s community control on an
interstate compact. But in early 2022, Collier-Green informed the New York
authorities that he was not under their jurisdiction, he was “an internationally
protected citizen,” and “no longer domiciled in the District of Columbia.”
The state charged Collier-Green with violating the terms of his community control
{¶5} In June 2022, the state charged Collier-Green with a community-
control violation based on his failure to notify the New York authorities of his current
address and for failing to report as ordered.
{¶6} During an October 2022 hearing on the community-control violation,
Collier-Green pleaded no contest to the violation. The court realized that Collier-Green
was facing charges in Michigan for intimidation and aggravated stalking based on
threatening texts that Collier-Green had sent to his wife.
{¶7} Defense counsel explained that Collier-Green was having difficulties
with his divorce because his wife caused him to lose his job at Syracuse University, he
was living in a storage unit, and his wife had taken their child and moved to Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Defense counsel informed the court that the state had recommended
probation on the Michigan charges.
{¶8} The trial court considered what punishment to impose, stating that it
could not send Collier-Green to prison, but it could “lock him up for six months.” The
court continued sentencing on the community-control violation until the following
week so that it could determine what was going on with the Michigan case and whether
Collier-Green had anything further on his record outside of Hamilton County, Ohio.
{¶9} Collier-Green addressed the court, explaining that he was “told in
Michigan” that once he was released from Hamilton County, he was to report back to
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the court in Ann Arbor as they had him “on an EMU unit to keep [him] out of
Michigan.”
The trial court learned details about the Michigan charges
{¶10} The trial court received a report from the Michigan court where Collier-
Green had been indicted on felony charges. Defense counsel explained that Collier-
Green had been held in jail in Syracuse on the Michigan charges, extradited to
Michigan, and had since been incarcerated for 180 days.
{¶11} The trial court imposed the maximum 18-month sentence for the
underlying trafficking charge. Then the court read aloud some of the threats that
Collier-Green had reportedly sent to his wife. Taking the Michigan report into
consideration, the trial court ordered that his sentences for drug trafficking and the
Michigan charges be served consecutively. It stated that Collier-Green’s criminal
history showed that it needed to protect the public.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶12} Collier-Green argues in his first assignment of error that the trial court
erred by imposing the maximum 18-month sentence versus the six-month sentence
that the court could impose for a technical community-control violation. Under R.C.
2953.08(G)(2), this court may modify or vacate a sentence only if we find that the
record does not support the mandatory-sentencing findings or that the sentence is
otherwise contrary to law. State v. White, 2013-Ohio-4225, 997 N.E.2d 629, ¶ 9-11 (1st
Dist.). A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court
“considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in
R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes postrelease control, and sentences the defendant
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-
06-100, 2016-Ohio-2890, ¶ 8.
A. Collier-Green’s violation was nontechnical
{¶13} Collier-Green did not deny that he notified the New York probation
authorities that “he was no longer under their jurisdiction and that he is an
internationally protected citizen, not in their jurisdiction and no longer domiciled in
the District of Columbia.” But Collier-Green argues that this was a technical violation
of his community control and that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum
sentence.
{¶14} R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c) permits a trial court to sentence an offender who
violates conditions of community control imposed for felony charges to prison time
under R.C. 2929.14. With some exceptions not relevant here, a trial court’s sentence
for an offender’s technical violation of community control imposed for a fourth-degree
felony “shall not exceed” 180 days. R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii). The limitations set forth
in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii) apply only to “technical violations.”
{¶15} But for nontechnical violations, the sentencing court is not limited to a
180-day term. And while the statute does not define “technical,” courts have
determined that a “technical violation” is a violation of any requirement that merely
facilitates community-control supervision, as opposed to “a substantive rehabilitative
requirement which addressed a significant factor contributing to” the offender’s
misconduct. See State v. Nelson, 162 Ohio St.3d 338, 2020-Ohio-3690, 165 N.E.3d
1110 ¶ 33, quoting State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2017-11-156, 2018-Ohio-
2672, ¶ 17.
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶16} Collier-Green’s violation was nontechnical. The trial court permitted
Collier-Green to serve his term of community control in Syracuse, New York, via an
interstate compact. Thus, the trial court had maintained jurisdiction over Collier-
Green while he was serving his term of community control in New York, and the New
York probation authorities likewise exercised jurisdiction over Collier-Green. Yet, he
refused to update his address and to report to probation, asserting, without any
legitimate authority to do so, that the New York probation authorities lacked
jurisdiction over him. Collier-Green told the New York department that he was no
longer under its jurisdiction, he was an internationally protected citizen, his records
were being amended, and that he was no longer domiciled in the District of Columbia.
He provided a false home address. He refused to report to probation. And he picked
up new charges in Michigan.
{¶17} Collier-Green’s acts went beyond failing to immediately notify
probation of a change of address or failing to report. Instead, his acts “established []
that he was unwilling to cooperate with the requirements placed upon him by others
in authority,” “basically ignor[ed] the whole process,” and “the cumulative effect of the
violations amount[ed] to a pattern of conduct that demonstrate[d] a failure to comply
with the community-control sanction as a whole.” State v. Smith, 12th Dist. Clermont
No. CA2020-08-044, 2021-Ohio-630, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Martinez, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-180580, 2019-Ohio-3350, ¶ 3, 11.
{¶18} When an offender defies the authority of the court and the probation
department or fails to engage in any of the conditions of community control, it is not
a technical violation. By stating that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of New
York’s probation authorities, Collier-Green mocked the authority of the trial court to
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
impose community-control conditions. We overrule Collier-Green’s first assignment
of error.
B. The trial court informed Collier-Green of his potential sentence
{¶19} Collier-Green argues in his second assignment of error that the trial
court erred by failing to “inform [him] at his sentencing hearing of the specific term it
would impose for a community control violation.” This argument is without merit. The
trial court advised Collier-Green that it could impose the maximum 18-month prison
sentence for a community-control violation during the first sentencing hearing on the
drug-trafficking case.
{¶20} But Collier-Green further contends that because the “extra Michigan
prison sentence was not stated by the trial court during the sentencing hearing,” the
trial court failed to advise him that he would also face a consecutive Michigan prison
term if he violated community control while under supervision in Ohio.
{¶21} When the trial court sentenced Collier-Green for drug trafficking, the
Michigan charges did not yet exist. The court learned about the Michigan charges
when Collier-Green pleaded no contest to the community-control violation. The trial
court could not have foreseen that these charges would exist before it sentenced
Collier-Green to community control. Indeed, the Michigan cases were still pending
when the trial court sentenced Collier-Green for his community-control violations. As
Collier-Green had not yet been found guilty, the trial court’s imposition of consecutive
sentences was a nullity. We overrule Collier-Green’s second assignment of error.
III. Conclusion
{¶22} To be clear, in other circumstances, failing to immediately update the
probation department of a change of address or failing to report to probation may
7
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
constitute a technical violation of community-control rules. But Collier-Green’s acts
went far beyond that. Instead, he defied the community-control system as a whole by
refusing to be subject to the rules. As such, his violation was nontechnical and not
subject to R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii)’s 180-day limitation. Further, the trial court
advised Collier-Green that it could impose the maximum sentence if Collier-Green
violated community control. Finally, the trial court could not have anticipated that
Collier-Green would eventually be charged with felonies in Michigan, which were still
pending when the court imposed the reserved maximum sentence. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
BERGERON, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
8