State v. Wooten

Summary

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of Zachary Lyle Wooten’s community control and his 18-month prison sentence for felony domestic violence. The court conducted an Anders review and found no non-frivolous issues concerning the violation proceedings, Wooten’s admissions, sentencing, post-release control, intensive program prison eligibility, or collection of costs and fees. The court held that the sentence was within the statutory range and supported by the record.

Holdings

1. A defendant facing revocation of community control is entitled to due-process protections including a preliminary probable-cause hearing and a final revocation hearing, but Wooten presented no non-frivolous procedural claim because he received notice, appeared with counsel, agreed that probable cause existed, and subsequently admitted the violations.
2. Wooten's admissions to the six community-control violations were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.
3. The eighteen-month sentence imposed after revocation of community control was within the statutory range, was authorized by the original sentencing notice, complied with applicable statutory limitations, and was not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.
4. The trial court did not present a non-frivolous claim that it violated R.C. 2929.19(D) by disapproving Wooten for intensive program prison placement.
5. The trial court's order directing withholding of funds from Wooten's inmate account to collect court costs and court-appointed counsel fees presented no non-frivolous appellate issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether any non-frivolous issue existed concerning the procedures used to revoke Wooten's community control, including probable-cause and final-hearing requirements.
2. Whether Wooten's admissions to the community-control violations were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
3. Whether the trial court's eighteen-month prison sentence was contrary to law or clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record.
4. Whether the trial court complied with the findings requirement for disapproving placement in an intensive program prison under R.C. 2929.19(D).
5. Whether the order directing withholding of funds from Wooten's inmate account to collect costs and fees presented a non-frivolous issue.

Disposition

affirmed