[Cite as State v. Harris, 2026-Ohio-3352.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO Case No. CT2026-0047
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion and Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. CR2024-0296
RUSSELL HARRIS
Judgment: Affirmed
Defendant - Appellant
Date of Judgment Entry: August 27, 2026
BEFORE: Andrew J. King; William B. Hoffman; David M. Gormley, Judges
APPEARANCES: Joseph A. Palmer, Esq., Muskingum County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Chris Brigdon, for Defendant-Appellant.
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Russell Harris appeals the May 1, 2026 Entry entered by
the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
{¶2} On May 13, 2024, the Muskingum County Prosecutor filed a Bill of
Information, charging Appellant with one count of operating a vehicle under the influence of
alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and
(G)(1)(a), a misdemeanor of the first degree (Count One); one count of failure to comply with
an order or signal of a police officer, in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) and (C)(3), a
misdemeanor of the first degree (Count Two); and one count of obstructing official business, in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A) and (B), a felony of the fifth degree (Count Three). On the
same day, Appellant waived prosecution by Indictment and entered a plea of guilty to the Bill
of Information. The trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy with Appellant and found
him guilty as charged. The trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation and released
Appellant on his own recognizance.
{¶3} Appellant appeared before the trial court for sentencing on July 8, 2024. The
trial court placed Appellant on community control for a period of three years. In addition, on
Count One, the trial court ordered Appellant to serve a mandatory five days of local
incarceration, imposed a mandatory fine of $525.00, and ordered a one-year suspension of
his driver’s license. The trial court reserved the right to impose a sentence within the statutory
range for a felony of the fifth degree should Appellant violate the terms and conditions of his
community control.
{¶4} On or about March 17, 2025, Appellant was arrested for violating the terms of
his community control after admitting to using opiates and cocaine. Appellant appeared at
the community control violation hearing on April 7, 2025, and advised the trial court he
intended to waive his right to a two-part hearing and enter a plea of guilty to the violations.
Jason Haser, a probation officer with Muskingum County Adult Probation, detailed the
community control sanctions Appellant had violated. Specifically, Appellant admitted using
cocaine on or about March 15, 2025, and several other times since December 2024. In
addition, Appellant admitted he used alcohol multiple times since the removal of his Secure
Continuous Remote Alcohol (“SCRAM”) monitor in October, 2024.
{¶5} The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea and proceeded with sentencing. The
trial court ordered Appellant remain on community control for a period of two years. In addition, Appellant was ordered to participate in and successfully complete the residential
program at The Landing and all post-program requirements; be subject to and obey all rules
and regulations of the facility as well as orders of the staff; and be financially responsible for
clothing and health related expenses. After successful completion of The Landing program,
Appellant was required to wear a SCRAM monitor for up to 180 days at the discretion of the
probation department. On the record, the trial court advised Appellant if he failed to follow
the rules and regulations of his community control, he could be brought back before the court
and the court “could impose more severe sanctions of community control or send you to
prison for any period of time I could have originally.” Transcript of April 7, 2025 Community
Control Violation Hearing at p.14. The trial court added, “[r]eserved for sentencing on Count
3 is 12 months in prison.” Id.
{¶6} Appellant again violated the terms of his community control, and the trial court
issued a bench warrant on December 19, 2025. Appellant was arrested on April 22, 2026.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the community control violations on April 30, 2026,
at which time Appellant waived his right to a two-part hearing and entered a plea of guilty to
the violations. Probation officer Jason Haser detailed the community control sanctions
Appellant had violated, to wit: failing to report as ordered between December 18, 2025, and
April 22, 2026; using illegal substances and testing positive for oxycodone on December 8,
2025; and failing to abstain from the use of alcohol and admitting to consuming alcohol
multiple times between December 13, 2025, and April 22, 2026. Haser recommended
Appellant’s community control be revoked.
{¶7} After accepting Appellant’s plea, the trial court proceeded with sentencing.
The trial court found Appellant was no longer amenable to community control and revoked the same. On Count One, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a period of local incarceration
of 180 days; on Count Two, a period of local incarceration of 180 days; and on Count Three,
a prison term of 12 months. The court ordered the sentences be served concurrently for an
aggregate prison term of 12 months. The trial court memorialized Appellant’s convictions
and sentence via Entry filed May 1, 2026.
{¶8} It is from that entry Appellant appeals, raising as his sole assignment of error:
THE MINIMUM SANCTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE OF
R.C. §2929.11 WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE SENTENCE
APPELLANT RECEIVED.
{¶9} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant maintains the sentence imposed by
the trial court did not reflect the minimum sanctions necessary to achieve the principles and
purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11. Appellant submits, although the trial court
properly considered his “criminal history as an aggravating factor under R.C. 2929.12,” the
court “failed to give appropriate weight to the substantial mitigating factors present.” Brief of
Appellant at p. 5. Appellant concludes the trial court’s April 7, 2025 reservation of the
“absolute maximum prison term while simultaneously finding that continued community
control with residential treatment was appropriate [was] inconsistent with [the] statutory
mandates” of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Id. at p 6.
{¶10} “The right to continue on community control depends on a defendant's
compliance with community control conditions and is a matter that rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Schreiber, 2019-Ohio-2963, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.). “We review a trial court's decision to revoke a community-control sanction for an
abuse of discretion.” State v. Dyer, 2026-Ohio-2387, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Calhoun,
2019-Ohio-228, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.). An abuse of discretion connotes the trial court's attitude is
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219
(1983).
{¶11} Under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1) and (3), if an offender violates the conditions of a
community-control sanction, the court may impose “a longer period of community control,
a more restrictive community-control sanction, or a prison term of any length within the range of
that available for the original offense up to the maximum term the trial court specified at the first
sentencing hearing.” (Internal quotations omitted.) (Emphasis added.) Calhoun at ¶ 18, citing
State v. Jackson, 2016-Ohio-8127, ¶ 13, citing R.C. 2929.15(B) then in effect. Generally
speaking, a trial court holds a “great deal of discretion” to fashion a sentence after finding an
offender has violated the conditions of community control. Id.
{¶12} When a defendant is sentenced to prison following a community control
violation, a “trial court is not required to give findings or reasons for the prison term imposed
within the statutory range.” Calhoun, ¶ 21, citing State v. Mincer, 2018-Ohio-5199, ¶ 15 (6th
Dist.). The trial court is required, however, to notify the defendant at the time of his original
sentencing a prison term of the length which was ultimately imposed was an option following
a future community control violation. Id. at ¶ 21, citing State v. Brooks, 2004-Ohio-4746,
paragraph two of the syllabus, and R.C. 2929.15(B). Here, a twelve-month prison term is
undisputedly within the statutory range for a fifth-degree felony. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(5). In
addition, the trial court properly notified Appellant -- both at his original sentencing hearing
and at his first community control violation hearing – should he violate the terms of his community control, “[r]eserved for sentencing on Count 3 is 12 months in prison.” Tr. April
7, 2025 Community Control Violation Hearing at p.14.
{¶13} Appellant’s first violation of his community control occurred on or about
March 15, 2025, approximately 8 months after he was originally sentenced. The trial court
ordered Appellant remain on community control for a period of two years. In December,
2025, 8 months after the first hearing, Appellant again violated the terms of his community
control. The trial court issued a bench warrant on December 19, 2025, and Appellant was
arrested on April 22, 2026.
{¶14} At Appellant’s original sentencing hearing and the hearing on his first
community control violations, the trial court imposed “the minimum sanctions” to
accomplish “the overriding purposes of felony sentencing * * * to protect the public from
future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the effective
rehabilitation of the offender.” R.C. 2929.11(A). However, Appellant did not respond
favorably to those sanctions. The trial court, in its discretion, subsequently imposed prison
time after Appellant violated his community control a second time and then absconded. The
trial court was not obligated to give Appellant unlimited opportunities to demonstrate he was
amenable to community control—allowing him two chances was generous.
{¶15} Accordingly, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked
Appellant’s community control and imposed the reserved sentence of 12 months.
{¶16} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
{¶17} Costs to Appellant.
By: Hoffman, J.
King, P.J. and
Gormley, J. concur.