State v. Whitfield ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Whitfield, 2024-Ohio-187.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-23-1099
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202102966
v.
Mitchell Whitfield DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: January 19, 2024
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Kaitlyn Tauber, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Samuel E. Gold, for appellant.
*****
SULEK, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Mitchell Whitfield, appeals the Lucas County Court of Common
Pleas’ April 13, 2023 judgment entry revoking his community control and sentencing
him to 24 months of imprisonment following his admission to a community control
violation. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, the judgment is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} A jury convicted Whitfield of possession of cocaine, a fifth-degree felony,
and tampering with evidence, a third-degree felony. On October 7, 2022, he was
sentenced to four years of community control with the following conditions:
[It] be monitored by the Lucas County Adult Probation Department
specifically to include: 1) Pursuant to R.C. 2901.07, defendant ordered to
submit to DNA testing; 2) Defendant to successfully complete the Day
Reporting program; 3) Defendant to submit to random drug testing
including urinalysis, blood testing, or drug patch to be determined by the
Centralized Drug Testing Unit pursuant to policy; 4) Defendant to seek and
maintain gainful verifiable employment; 5) Defendant must abide by the
laws of this state and this nation and may not leave the State of Ohio
without permission of this Court and/or his/her supervising probation
officer; 6) Defendant committed to the Lucas County Work Release
Program with no violations for 180 days. Defendant has two weeks to find
a job, if no job balance of time to be served at CCNO. There is to be strict
compliance.
{¶ 3} The court notified Whitfield that if he violated the terms of his community
control it would “lead to a longer or more restrictive sanction for defendant, including a
prison term of 12 months as to count 1 and 36 months as to count 2.” On direct appeal,
2.
this court affirmed Whitfield’s convictions. See State v. Whitfield, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-
22-1259, 2023-Ohio-4579.
{¶ 4} On November 9, and December 27, 2022, Whitfield filed pro se motions in
the trial court requesting that the court modify the terms of his community control.
Specifically, Whitfield requested release from electronic monitoring and lessening of the
reporting conditions. The state opposed the motion. On January 31, 2023, the trial court
denied the motion.
{¶ 5} On February 21, 2023, the trial court ordered that a capias be issued
“[p]ursuant to the request of Electronic Monitoring.” Following his arrest, Whitfield
waived a hearing and admitted to a community control violation. The court then imposed
a 24-month prison sentence.
{¶ 6} This appeal followed.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 7} Whitfield raises the following assignment of error:
I. The Trial Court abused its discretion by revoking Appellant’s
community control and imposing 36 months incarceration.1
1
Whitfield was sentenced to a 24-month, not 36-month, prison sentence.
3.
III. Analysis
{¶ 8} Whitfield’s sole argument is that the trial court erred in revoking his
community control and imposing a prison term. The state asserts that the sentence was
proper because Whitfield provided no reasonable explanation for his noncompliance with
community control conditions.
{¶ 9} “‘The right to continue on community control depends on a defendant’s
compliance with community control conditions[.]’” State v. Bahnsen, 6th Dist. Erie No.
E-21-004, 2021-Ohio-3057, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Schreiber, 12th Dist. Warren No.
CA2018-03-026, 2019-Ohio-2963, ¶ 18. Under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1) and (3), if an
offender violates the conditions of a community-control sanction or violates a law, the
court may impose a longer period of community control, a more restrictive community-
control sanction, or a prison term within the range available for the underlying offense up
to the maximum term specified at the original sentencing hearing. Bahnsen at ¶ 12, citing
State v. Calhoun, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-17-067, 2019-Ohio-228, ¶ 18. A trial court
holds a “great deal of discretion” to fashion a sentence after finding that an offender has
violated the conditions of community control. Id., citing Calhoun at ¶ 18.
{¶ 10} On appeal, a trial court’s decision to revoke a community control sanction
is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Foley, 6th Dist. Wood No.
WD-21-005, 2021-Ohio-3263, ¶ 19, citing Calhoun at ¶ 17. An abuse of discretion
4.
connotes that the trial court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State
v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).
{¶ 11} Here, Whitfield admitted violating the conditions of his community control.
Specifically, that “[he was] terminated from day reporting for unexcused absences and
[he] failed to submit urinalysis pursuant to the probation department’s policy.” At
sentencing, Whitfield stated that his job commitments prevented his regular attendance at
the day reporting program and compliance with the drug testing requirements. He stated:
“I’m just asking to be worked with for my lifestyle so I can be successful.” The trial
court then reminded Whitfield that his community control (in lieu of a prison) sentence
was premised on “strict compliance.” The court noted Whitfield’s 4 prior felonies and 29
misdemeanors. It then properly imposed a prison sentence within the statutory range of
which Whitfield was informed at his original sentencing.
{¶ 12} Upon review, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
Whitfield’s community control and imposing a prison sentence. Whitfield’s first
assignment of error is not well-taken.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, Whitfield is ordered to pay the costs
of this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
5.
State of Ohio
v. Mitchell Whitfield
L-23-1099
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Gene A. Zmuda, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J.
____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
6.