State v. Brock
| Decision Date | 21 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-CA-10 |
| Citation | 2018 Ohio 3404 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. SIERRA R. BROCK Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
OPINION
For Plaintiff-Appellee
HAWKEN FLANAGAN
DANIEL BENOIT
20 South Second Street
Fourth Floor
Newark, OH 43055
For Defendant-Appellant
JAMES ANZELMO
446 Howland Drive
Gahanna, OH 43230
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Sierra R. Brock ["Brock"] appeals the January 16, 2018 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas revoking community control sanctions and imposing a six month sentence.
{¶2} On August 6, 2014, the Licking County Grand Jury returned a single count Indictment charging Brock with Passing Bad Checks, a felony of the 5th degree in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 2913.11(B). On January 29, 2015, Brock entered a plea of guilty to the Indictment, as charged. A sentencing hearing was conducted the same day, and Brock was placed on community control for a period of three years. In addition, Brock was ordered to make restitution in the amount of $1,000.00, and she was ordered to pay court costs and the fees incurred by the County for her court-appointed attorney. Brock was advised that if she were to violate the conditions of her community control, the court could impose additional penalties, including the imposition of a six-month prison sentence.
{¶3} On January 30, 2015, Brock reported to the Licking County Adult Court Services, where she reviewed and acknowledged the Conditions of Supervision paperwork. Specifically, Brock initialed and acknowledged the following:
{¶4} On October 18, 2017, a warrant was issued for Brock's arrest, indicating that she was not reporting as ordered and that her whereabouts were unknown.
{¶5} On December 27, 2017, Brock was located and arrested. On January 3, 2018, a Motion to Revoke Appellant's Community Control was filed. Pursuant to the Motion, Brock was alleged to have violated General Condition's nos. 1 and 4, Non-Residential Condition no. 14, and Financial Sanctions nos. 1, 5, and 6.
{¶6} With respect to General Condition no. 1, the Motion alleged that Brock failed to advise her supervising officer of traffic citations on June 22, 2017, and September 4, 2017. With respect to General Condition no. 4, the Motion alleged that Brock's whereabouts were unknown for several months; that Brock had failed to report for scheduled office visits in September, October, and November of 2017; and that Brock failed to respond to Adult Parole Authority personnel at her reported residence. With respect to Non-Residential sanction no. 14, the Motion alleged that Brock failed to submit pay stubs verifying her employment. With respect to Financial Sanction no. 1, the Motion alleged that Brock failed to make restitution, as ordered, and that she had not made any payments since 2015. With respect to Financial Sanctions nos. 5 and 6, the Motion alleged that Brock had not paid the court costs associated with the underlying case and that she had not paid the costs incurred for her court-appointed attorney.
{¶7} At a hearing held January 4, 2018, the court found probable cause. On January 16, 2018, Brock appeared for a Second Stage Hearing on the Motion to Revoke Community Control. Appellant, with counsel, waived the hearing and admitted to violating the terms and conditions of her supervision. After receiving statements from the state and from Brock, the Court revoked Brock's community control and imposed the reserved sentence of six months.
{¶8} Brock raises three assignments of error.
{¶9} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REVOKED BROCK'S COMMUNITY CONTROL AND SENTENCED HER TO JAIL, IN VIOLATION OF HER RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
{¶10} "II. SIERRA BROCK RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SECTION TO, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶11}
{¶12} In her First Assignment of Error, Brock contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her community control because the trial court failed to consider Brock's ability to pay restitution, court costs and attorney fees.
STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW.
{¶13} "The privilege of probation rests upon the probationer's compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege." State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808, 2006-Ohio-2353, 853 N.E.2d 675 (6th Dist.), ¶ 19, quoting State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57, 583 N.E.2d 414 (5th Dist. 1990). "Because a community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, the state does not have to establish a violation with proof beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Wolfson, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 03CA25, 2004-Ohio-2750, 2004 WL 1178724, ¶ 7; see, also, State v. Payne, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2001-09-081, 2002 WL 649403; State v. Hylton, 75 Ohio App.3d 778, 782, 600 N.E.2d 821 (4th Dist. 1991). Instead, the state need only present "substantial" proof that a defendant willfully violated the community control conditions. See Hylton, 75 Ohio App.3d at 782, 600 N.E.2d 821. State v. Hayes, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-00-075, 2001 WL 909291 (Aug. 10, 2001). Additionally, the "[d]etermination of the credibility of the witnesses is for the trier of fact." Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808, 2006-Ohio-2353, 853 N.E.2d 675, ¶ 19. See also, State v. Brank, 5th Dist. Tusc. No. 2006AP 090053, 2007-Ohio-919, 2007 WL 657704.
{¶14} Once a trial court finds that a defendant violated community control conditions, it possesses discretion to revoke the defendant's community control. In that event, appellate courts should not reverse trial court decisions unless a court abused its discretion. Wolfson, 2004-Ohio-2750, 2004 WL 1178724, ¶ 8.
{¶15} Thus, State v. Amos, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 15CA5, 2016-Ohio-917, ¶9.
{¶16} An abuse of discretion exists where the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice, or where the judgment reaches an end or purpose not justified by reason and the evidence. Tennant v. Gallick, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26827, 2014-Ohio-477, 2014 WL 602264, ¶ 35; In re Guardianship of S.H., 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0066-M, 2013-Ohio-4380, 2013 WL 5519847, ¶ 9; State v. Firouzmandi, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2006-CA-41, 2006-Ohio-5823, 2006 WL 3185175, ¶ 54.
{¶17} The weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are issues for the trier of fact. State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182, 552 N.E.2d 180, certiorari denied (1990), 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 228, 112 L.Ed.2d 183. Reviewing courts should accord deference to the trial court's decision because the trial court has had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor, gestures, and voice inflections which cannot be conveyed to us through the written record, Miller v. Miller, 37 Ohio St.3d 71, 523 N.E.2d 846(1988).
ISSUE FOR APPEAL.
{¶18} In the case at bar, Brock admitted the violations. T., Second Stage Revocation Hearing, Jan. 16, 2018 at 3. Accordingly, the trial court had competent credible evidence to support its findings that Brock violated the terms of her community control.
{¶19} At oral argument in this matter both parties agreed that Brock has completed the jail sentence imposed upon her in the trial court's January 16, 2018 Judgment Entry.
{¶20} "Mootness is a jurisdictional question because the Court 'is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions." United States v. Alaska S.S. Co., 253 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial