Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Noonan

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler

July 22, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,
v.
WHITNEY A. NOONAN, Appellant.

          CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case Nos. CR2018-01-0067 and CR2018-04-0683

          Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, John C. Heinkel, for appellee.

          Engel & Martin, LLC, Mary K. Martin, for appellant.

          OPINION

          M. POWELL, J.

         {¶ 1} Appellant, Whitney Noonan, appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas revoking her community control and sentencing her to prison.

         {¶ 2} In June 2018, appellant pled guilty to a fourth-degree felony count of theft from a person in a protected class in Case No. CR2018-01-0067 ("Case No. 67") and to a fifth- degree felony count of attempted failure to appear in Case No. CR2018-04-0683 ("Case No. 683"). On July 20, 2018, the trial court sentenced appellant to three years of community control in both cases. The sentencing entries provided general conditions of supervision and several court-ordered community control conditions. As relevant here, appellant was required to successfully complete a substance abuse treatment program at Sojourner Recovery Services, an inpatient residential alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health treatment facility. Appellant was further required to "enter, comply with, and complete the Court Directed Addiction Treatment (C.D.A.T.) Program" and "to comply with all the terms and conditions of the Drug Court (C.D.A.T.) Participation Agreement." The terms of the agreement included successful completion of the Sojourner treatment program.

         {¶ 3} Appellant entered the Sojourner treatment program on August 2, 2018. On August 24, 2018, appellant sought emergency medical treatment at Fort Hamilton Hospital for chest pain and numbness in her left arm. She was treated and released that same day. On September 4, 2018, appellant sought emergency medical treatment at the hospital for chest pain. She was diagnosed with and hospitalized for chronic infective endocarditis and pulmonary embolism. She was released from the hospital on September 10, 2018. The next day, however, appellant once again sought emergency medical treatment at the hospital for difficulty breathing. She was diagnosed with MRSA and hospitalized for several days. On September 18, 2018, appellant was "medically discharged" from the Sojourner treatment program due to the severity of her medical issues.

         {¶ 4} On September 27, 2018, appellant's probation officer filed a violation of community control affidavit in both cases. The affidavits alleged that appellant violated the conditions of her community control by being unsuccessfully discharged from the Sojourner treatment program. On October 26, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on appellant's community control violations. Mike Campbell, appellant's probation officer, and Casey Clay, appellant's clinical dependency counselor at Sojourner, testified at the hearing. The parties' exhibits were admitted into evidence, including appellant's discharge summary from Sojourner prepared by Clay.

         {¶ 5} Campbell and Clay both testified that appellant was discharged from the Sojourner treatment program for medical reasons and that such discharge was not a successful discharge. Campbell understood that appellant was "medically terminated" from the Sojourner treatment program because it could not handle appellant's medical conditions which included lung and heart problems and which resulted in several hospitalizations. Campbell further testified that on September 7, 2018, appellant called him and informed him that while she was hospitalized, a visitor injected her with heroin and then left, and that she had to be revived with Narcan. Appellant's counsel objected to this testimony; the trial court overruled the objection.

         {¶ 6} Clay testified that other than one minor violation involving a cellphone, for which appellant was not discharged, and some conflicts with peers, appellant did well in group participation. Clay testified that it was not until appellant's medical issues became worse that she no longer benefitted from the treatment program. Consequently, appellant was medically discharged from Sojourner as her medical issues prevented her from benefitting from or participating in the program. Clay testified that once appellant took care of her medical issues, she would be welcome back into the program. Clay affirmed that appellant was not discharged from the program for doing anything wrong.

         {¶ 7} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that appellant had violated her community control in both cases by being unsuccessfully discharged from the Sojourner treatment program and by overdosing on heroin while hospitalized. The trial court further noted appellant's poor performance during the pretrial phase of the case and in "Drug Court." The trial court then sentenced appellant. Noting that appellant's discharge from treatment was not a technical violation and that appellant overdosing on heroin "would constitute a new felony offense," the trial court sentenced appellant to 12 months in prison in both cases, to be served concurrently. The sentencing entries terminating appellant's community control in both cases and sentencing her to an aggregate 12-month prison term were journalized on October 26, 2018. At the hearing and in both sentencing entries, the trial court gave appellant 94 days of jail-time credit.

         {¶ 8} Appellant now appeals, raising three assignments of error.

         {¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 1:

         {¶ 10} APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN SHE WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF AN ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.