[Cite as State v. Pinks,
2020-Ohio-537.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HARDIN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 6-19-08
v.
BRANDON MICHAEL PINKS, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hardin County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CRI 20142078
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: February 18, 2020
APPEARANCES:
Todd A. Workman for Appellant
Jason M. Miller for Appellee
Case No. 6-19-08
SHAW, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Brandon Michael Pinks (“Pinks”), appeals the
July 3, 2019 judgment of the Hardin County Court of Common Pleas, journalizing
the revocation of his community control sanctions and imposing an aggregate non-
mandatory prison term of twenty-four months. On appeal, Pinks argues that the trial
court’s decision to revoke his community control was not supported by the evidence
in the record.
{¶2} On April 17, 2014, the Hardin County Grand Jury returned a five-count
indictment alleging that Pinks committed the offenses of Count One: Domestic
Violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A),(D)(3), a felony of the fourth degree;
Count Two: Domestic Violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A),(D)(3), a felony of
the fourth degree; Count Three: Failure to Comply with an Order or Signal of a
Police Officer, in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B),(C)(4), a felony of the fourth
degree; R.C. 2921.331 Count Four: Failure to Comply with an Order or Signal of a
Police Officer, in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B),(C)(5)(a)(ii), a felony of the third
degree; and Count Five: Resisting Arrest, in violation of R.C. 2921.33(A), a
misdemeanor of the second degree. Pinks appeared for arraignment and entered a
plea of not guilty to the charges listed in the indictment.
{¶3} On July 31, 2014, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Pinks
withdrew his previously tendered not guilty plea and entered a guilty plea to Count
-2-
Case No. 6-19-08
Two, fourth degree felony Domestic Violence, and Count Three, fourth degree
felony failure to comply. In exchange for his guilty plea, the prosecution agreed to
dismiss the three remaining counts in the indictment.
{¶4} On September 10, 2014, the trial court sentenced Pinks to serve a five-
year term of community control. The trial court notified Pinks that if he did not
abide by the terms and conditions of his community control he was subject to the
imposition of a twelve-month prison term on each conviction. Pursuant to a joint
sentencing recommendation of the parties, the trial court ordered that the twelve-
month terms be served consecutively if imposed.
{¶5} On May 24, 2016, Pinks’ community control officer filed a notice with
the trial court indicating that Pinks had failed to comply with the terms and
conditions of his community control. Specifically, the notice indicated that Pinks
had failed to report to his supervising officer and had not made his whereabouts
known since January 4, 2016. The trial court granted the community control
officer’s request to issue a bench warrant for Pinks’ arrest.
{¶6} On April 8, 2019, the prosecution filed a Motion for Revocation of
Supervision, requesting that the trial court issue an order revoking Pinks’
community control. In support of the motion, the State attached the affidavit of
Pinks’ community control officer who stated that Pinks had failed to report to his
supervising officer since January 4, 2016, and that he had been arrested on April 1,
-3-
Case No. 6-19-08
2019 in neighboring Hancock County on new charges and was incarcerated in that
county’s jail. The motion was later amended to add information specifying that
Pinks had been charged with Attempted Murder, Tampering with Evidence,
Possession of Criminal Tools, and Grand Theft.
{¶7} On July 2, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to
revoke Pinks’ community control. The trial court heard testimony from the current
community control officer assigned to Pinks’ case, the previous community control
officer who interacted with Pinks before he retired in February 2015, and the
Detective from the Hancock County Sheriff’s Office, who provided details of the
new charges pending against Pinks at the time.
{¶8} After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that Pinks had violated
multiple terms and conditions of his community control. The trial court revoked
Pinks’ community control and imposed a twelve-month prison term for each of his
previous convictions to be served consecutively for an aggregate non-mandatory
term of twenty-four months.
{¶9} Pinks filed this appeal asserting, the following assignment of error.
THE FINDING OF A COMMUNITY CONTROL VIOLATION
WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED.
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Pinks maintains the trial court erred
when it found that the evidence at the hearing supported finding he violated his
-4-
Case No. 6-19-08
community control and therefore subjected him to revocation of his community
control.
Standard of Review
{¶11} “The right to continue on community control depends upon
compliance with community control conditions and is a matter resting within the
sound discretion of the court.” State v. Freeman, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27392,
2018-Ohio-866, ¶ 11. Accordingly, we review the trial court’s decision to revoke a
defendant’s community control for an abuse of discretion
Id. An abuse of decision
implies that the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore,
5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
Legal Standard
{¶12} “[C]ommunity control revocation proceedings are not the same as a
criminal trial, and a revocation of community control punishes the failure to comply
with the terms and conditions of community control, not the specific conduct that
led to the revocation.” State v. Hatcher, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2017-CA-88, 2018-
Ohio-4348, ¶ 18. “Revocation hearings are not subject to the rules of evidence ….”
State v. Westrick, 196 Ohio App.3d 141, 2011–Ohio–1169, ¶ 24 (3d Dist.), citing
State v. Patierno, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-08-08,
2009-Ohio-410, ¶ 16; Evid.R.
101(C)(3). “The rationale for the exception is that, since a … revocation hearing
is an informal proceeding, not a criminal trial, the trier of fact should be able to
-5-
Case No. 6-19-08
consider any reliable and relevant evidence to determine whether the [defendant]
has violated the conditions of his [supervision].” Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio
App.3d 26, 36 (10th Dist. 1991), citing State v. Miller,
42 Ohio St.2d 102, 106
(1975).
Discussion
{¶13} The evidence adduced from the violation/revocation hearing revealed
that Pinks was placed on intensive supervision in September of 2014 as part of his
community control sanctions. The testimony of Terry Price, Pinks’ former
community control officer, indicated that Pinks maintained employment and
consistently reported to him in compliance with the terms of his community control.
However, Mr. Price retired in February 2015 and did not have any knowledge of
Pinks’ compliance after that time.
{¶14} The prosecution also presented the testimony of Victoria Defee, the
community control officer currently assigned to Pinks’ case. Ms. Defee explained
that she was assigned to Pinks’ case in April of 2018, but has never met Pinks. Ms.
Defee noted that Pinks’ file indicated that the last time he reported to his supervising
community control officer was on January 4, 2016, and that is whereabouts have
been unknown since that time, despite the fact that regular reporting and notification
of change of contact information are terms and conditions of Pinks’ community
control. Ms. Defee acknowledged that she is the person who filed the motion to
-6-
Case No. 6-19-08
revoke Pinks’ community control. She identified a certified copy of the four-count
indictment issued by the Hancock County Grand Jury in April of 2019 and charging
Pinks with four felony offenses, including attempted murder, as one of the primary
grounds for filing the motion.
{¶15} The last witness to testify for the prosecution in support of the motion
for revocation was Detective Frederick R. Smith from the Hancock County Sheriff’s
Office. Det. Smith testified that he encountered Pinks in early April of 2019, when
he interviewed Pinks while investigating the new charges out of Hancock County.
Det. Smith identified Pinks in the courtroom at the revocation hearing as the same
person under indictment in the Hancock County case. Det. Smith explained that
from his investigation he learned that Pinks and another man physically assaulted
two people at their home in Arlington, Ohio. Pinks admitted to Det. Smith that he
used a hatchet during the attack, but claimed he acted in self-defense. The hatchet
was taken from the scene and found with Mr. Pinks’ property. The hatchet was also
linked to Pinks through DNA testing. Det. Smith further elaborated that one of the
victim’s vehicle was also stolen from the crime scene.
{¶16} Based on this evidence at the hearing, the trial court found that the
prosecution established that Pinks had violated his community control in the
following ways: 1) by failing obey federal, state, and local laws and failing to
conduct himself as a law abiding citizen; 2) by failing to report in person to his
-7-
Case No. 6-19-08
supervising officer during the first week in each month after January 4, 2016; and
3) by failing to refrain from exercising control over weapons.
{¶17} Here, the record supports the trial court’s findings that Pinks violated
the terms of his community control on the three grounds mentioned by the trial court
as well as the additional grounds of failing to keep his supervising officer informed
of his current residence and failing to report any contact with law enforcement to
his supervising officer by the next business day. (Doc. No. 32, Ex. 1). Accordingly,
we conclude the record demonstrates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in finding that Pinks violated his community control or in concluding that revocation
of his community control is warranted under these circumstances.
{¶18} For all these reasons the assignment of error is overruled and the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-8-
