Login | April 30, 2025
Court must revoke ILC sentence after man violated terms of his treatment
JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 6, 2014
A trial court must revoke a man’s intervention in lieu of conviction treatment plan and impose other sanctions after he violated the terms of his treatment, according to a recent 12th District Court of Appeals ruling.
Adam Davis was indicted on one count of possession of cocaine in March 2013.
At that time, he filed a motion requesting that he be granted ILC and placed on a treatment plan.
The Warren County Court of Common Pleas granted that request but told him he would be subject to random drug tests and if he tested positive his “intervention will be revoked, you’ll lose your driver’s license, you’ll go to jail or prison.”
In November 2013, Davis tested positive for cocaine during a random drug test.
His probation officer filed a report that Davis had violated the terms of his treatment and the trial court held a hearing on the matter.
At the hearing, Davis admitted to the violation and the state requested that the trial court revoke his ILC.
In response, the trial court stated that the point of ILC was to deal with “drug dependent people” and give them a way to avoid a criminal record if they could cease their drug use.
It indicated that relapse was clearly “a consequence of drug addiction” and “if the legislature had intended for every relapse to revoke ILC they did a poor job of creating an intervention system.”
“It’s pointless to allow judges to have discretion and take it away from them, and I don’t think the legislature ever intended that,” the trial court stated.
That being said, the court entered its decision allowing Davis to continue his ILC treatment after serving only four days in jail.
The state then appealed that decision to the 12th District, arguing that the trial court was required to revoke ILC and impose a new sentence.
Upon review, the appellate judges found that R.C. 2951.041 governed the ILC procedure.
The statute states that when a court grants an offender’s request for ILC and the offender fails to comply with any term or condition of treatment, “it shall enter a finding of guilty and shall impose an appropriate sanction under Chapter 2929 of the Revised Code.”
“It is now well-established that R.C. 2951.041(F) clearly and unambiguously conveys the legislative intent that the trial court must sentence a defendant who is found to have failed his or her program of treatment in lieu of conviction to an appropriate sanction under R.C. Chapter 2929,” Judge Stephen Powell wrote for the court.
In Davis’ case, the judges determined he clearly admitted to violating the terms of his ILC when he concurred to testing positive for cocaine usage.
They held that the trial court properly found him guilty of the violation, but it erred in the rest of its decision.
“While the trial court may believe the legislature did a ‘poor job of creating an intervention system’ and that it is ‘pointless to allow judges to have discretion and take it away from them,’ the trial court must nevertheless comply with the plain, clear and unambiguous language found in R.C. 2951.041(F)( resulting from Davis’ alleged violation of the terms and conditions of his ILC,” Powell stated.
The three-judge panel held that the trial court must impose an appropriate sanction and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Presiding Judge Robert Hendrickson and Judge Michael Powell concurred.
The case is cited State v. Davis, 2014-Ohio-2122.
Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved