State v. Nelson

• Citation: 162 Ohio St.3d 338,165 N.E.3d 1110
• Decision Date: 15 July 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2019-0049,2019-0049
• Parties: The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. NELSON, Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

162 Ohio St.3d 338

165 N.E.3d 1110

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee,

v.NELSON, Appellant.

No. 2019-0049

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted January 28, 2020

Decided July 15, 2020

Kevin S. Talebi, Champaign County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jane A. Napier, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Peter Galyardt, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

O'Connor, C.J. {¶ 1} This appeal concerns the sentence that was imposed on defendant-appellant, John Edward Nelson, for violating the conditions of his community control. We hold that Nelson's violation of the condition that he obey all orders of his supervising officer was not a "technical violation" and therefore the 180-day cap on a prison sentence for a "technical violation" in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii) does not apply. We affirm the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals.

I. Relevant Background

{¶ 2} Nelson was indicted on eight counts of drug and forgery charges. In July 2016, he pleaded guilty to four of the drug charges—Count 5 (trafficking in cocaine), Count 6 (attempted aggravated trafficking in drugs), and Counts 7 and 8 (corrupting another with drugs). All four were fourth-degree felonies. He was sentenced to four years of community control.

{¶ 3} Nelson's community control included both standard and special conditions. Three of the standard conditions are relevant here—the first, second, and fifth standard conditions. The first standard condition required Nelson to "obey federal, state and local laws and ordinances." The second standard condition required Nelson to "follow all orders given to [him] by [his] supervising officer or other authorized representatives of the Court or the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction." Relevant to this case, in June 2017, Nelson's supervising officer, Officer Herbert Nicholson, ordered Nelson not to have any contact with Jamie Elliott. The fifth standard condition required him to "conduct [himself] as a responsible, law abiding citizen." Finally, the judgment entry also warned Nelson that if he violated the terms of his community control, he would be sentenced to 34 months in prison.¹

{¶ 4} In January 2018, the trial court held a community-control-revocation hearing based on allegations that Nelson had violated the three community-control conditions noted above. The alleged violations stemmed from an incident that occurred on December 23, 2017, at the house of Nelson's aunt. Nelson testified at the hearing, as did Nicholson and Nelson's aunt.

{¶ 5} Nelson had been living with his aunt, but he had been gone for a couple days leading up to December 23 because she did not allow drinking in the house and had asked him to leave. On the afternoon of December 23, Nelson had been drinking with Elliott and was intoxicated when he went back to the house he shared with his aunt. But because he was intoxicated, his aunt told him to leave and come back the next day. Nelson left, but he returned soon thereafter to get clothes because he was cold. He was locked out, however, and according to his aunt, he was "screaming" and "yelling profanity," demanding to be let in. Nelson kicked the door, and it cracked open four or five inches. Nelson then shut the door and walked away. His aunt called the police, who found him walking down the street and arrested him. Nelson was subsequently convicted of criminal damaging in the Champaign County Municipal Court.

{¶ 6} The trial court found that Nelson's actions violated three standard community-control conditions. Specifically, Nelson violated the first standard condition, requiring him to obey all state laws, by "caus[ing] damage to property." Nelson violated the second standard condition, requiring him to obey all orders given to him by his supervising officer, by having contact with Elliott in December 2017. Finally, Nelson violated the fifth standard condition, requiring him to conduct himself as a responsible, law-abiding citizen, by acting in a disorderly manner. As a result of these violations, the trial court revoked Nelson's community control and imposed the 34-month aggregate prison sentence it had warned Nelson he would face for a community-control violation at his initial sentencing hearing in 2016.

{¶ 7} Nelson appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals. He argued that his prison sentence should not have exceeded 180 days, pursuant to R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii). That provision states that "[i]f the conditions of a community control sanction are violated," the sentencing court may sentence the offender to a prison term, subject to the following limitation:

If the prison term is imposed for any technical violation of the conditions of a community control sanction imposed for a felony of the fourth degree that is not an offense of violence and is not a sexually oriented offense or for any violation of law committed while under a community 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 one hundred eighty days.

R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii). Nelson argued that each of his three violations was either a misdemeanor or a "technical violation" of his community control and that therefore, the maximum prison sentence he could receive for those violations was 180 days.

{¶ 8} The Second District rejected that argument. It focused on whether Nelson's violation of the second standard condition—that he comply with Nicholson's no-contact order—constituted a "technical violation" of his community control, and it concluded that it did not.² It followed the approach taken in two courts of appeals decisions that considered whether community-control violations were "technical violations," State v. Davis , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2017-11-156, 2018-Ohio-2672, 2018 WL 3342564, and State v. Mannah , 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 17-CA-54, 2018-Ohio-4219, 2018 WL 5098864. Those cases found a violation to be a nontechnical violation when the condition violated was "specifically tailored to address and treat [the defendant's] substance abuse issues," and when it was "a substantive rehabilitative requirement which addressed a significant factor contributing to [the defendant's] criminal conduct." Davis at ¶ 17, 18 ; see also Mannah at ¶ 10, 12, and 15 (following Davis ). A technical violation, by contrast, those courts explained, was more akin to "an administrative requirement facilitating community control supervision." Davis at ¶ 18 ; see also Mannah at ¶ 12 and 15 (following Davis ).

{¶ 9} Based on this distinction, the Second District found that the no-contact order issued under the second standard condition had been specifically tailored to Nelson and that Nelson himself had admitted that "drinking alcohol was his ‘main problem,’ and that Elliott's use of alcohol around him contributed to his drinking and his violations of community control." 2018-Ohio-4763, 124 N.E.3d 450, ¶ 32. The Second District therefore held that the violation was not a "technical violation," meaning Nelson's prison sentence was not capped at 180 days by R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii). It affirmed his sentence.

{¶ 10} Nelson appealed to this court, raising one proposition of law: "The caps on community-control-violation prison sentences for underlying, qualified fourth- and fifth-degree felonies apply to all community-control violations that are based upon conduct that does not constitute a felony-level crime."³ We accepted jurisdiction. 155 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2019-Ohio-1205, 120 N.E.3d 30.

II. Analysis

{¶ 11} "The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and accordingly, we review the matter de novo." State v. Vanzandt , 142 Ohio St.3d 223, 2015-Ohio-236, 28 N.E.3d 1267, ¶ 6.

A. The Meaning of "Technical Violation" in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii)

{¶ 12} Nelson argues that the 180-day cap on prison sentences applies to all community-control violations that are not felonies. In support, he points to the language in the statute applying the cap to all violations that are either a "technical violation" or a "violation of law * * * that is not a felony." Nelson also asserts that this court has "long defined the term ‘technical violation’ to mean non-criminal conduct in the parole context," citing this court's decision in State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. , 66 Ohio St.3d 121, 124, 609 N.E.2d 546 (1993).

{¶ 13} In Taylor , we considered an inmate's argument that he had been entitled to but had not received a parole-revocation hearing within 60 days of being taken into custody. We quoted a federal circuit court's statement that technical violations of parole are " ‘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.’ " Taylor at 124, 609 N.E.2d 546, quoting Inmates' Councilmatic Voice v. Rogers , 541 F.2d 633, 635 (6th Cir.1976), fn. 2. According to Nelson, this is the meaning of the term "technical violation" for the purposes of community control under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c). And, he argues, it must be presumed that when the General Assembly enacted subsection R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii) in 2017, 2017 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 49 ("H.B. 49"), it understood that this court's definition of "technical violation" would apply to that subsection. See Wayt v. DHSC, L.C.C. , 155 Ohio St.3d 401, 2018-Ohio-4822, 122 N.E.3d 92, ¶ 23 ("the legislature is presumed to have full knowledge of prior judicial decisions").

{¶ 14} Finally, Nelson argues that this court should interpret R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii) in his favor because doing so would further the clear purpose of the subsection, which was to reduce the number of low-level offenders in state prisons, see State v. Neville...