[Cite as State v. Wiggins,
2022-Ohio-2718.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 3-21-25
v.
CARL W. WIGGINS, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 20-CR-0349
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 8, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Howard A. Elliott for Appellant
Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee
Case No. 3-21-25
MILLER, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Carl W. Wiggins, appeals the November 16, 2021
judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas revoking his judicial
release and reimposing the balance of his 48-month prison term. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
I. Background
{¶2} On September 29, 2020, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted
Wiggins on Count One of having weapons while under disability in violation of
R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a third-degree felony, and Count Two of possession of drugs
in violation of R.C. 2925.11, a fifth-degree felony. On November 23, 2020,
Wiggins pleaded guilty to both counts of the indictment. The trial court proceeded
immediately to sentencing. Following a joint sentencing recommendation between
Wiggins and the State, the trial court sentenced Wiggins to 36 months in prison on
Count One and 12 months in prison on Count Two, to be served consecutively for
an aggregate term of 48 months in prison. As part of the arrangement, the State
agreed to recommend judicial release after Wiggins served a portion of his prison
term.
{¶3} On February 19, 2021, Wiggins filed a motion for judicial release,
which the trial court granted on March 31, 2021. The trial court placed Wiggins on
-2-
Case No. 3-21-25
community-control supervision for a period of five years “under the standard
conditions and terms of the Crawford County Probation Department.”
{¶4} On August 16, 2021, the State filed a motion for Wiggins to show cause
why his judicial release should not be revoked. In its motion, the State alleged that
Wiggins had violated the conditions of his community-control supervision by
failing to report to his supervising officer on June 1, 2021, testing positive for THC,
amphetamine, and methamphetamine, and admitting to having consumed marijuana
and methamphetamine. Wiggins, who had been arrested pursuant to a warrant
issued after he failed to meet with his supervising officer, was released on bond on
September 5, 2021. Thereafter, on September 27, 2021, Wiggins failed to appear
for a scheduled drug test and visit with his supervising officer. A warrant was again
issued for Wiggins’s arrest, and when Wiggins was taken into custody on October
6, 2021, he refused to submit to drug testing or sign a refused drug test form.
{¶5} At a revocation hearing on November 10, 2021, Wiggins admitted to
violating the terms of his community-control supervision. The trial court then
turned to decide whether to continue Wiggins’s judicial release. Based on
Wiggins’s criminal history, including a 2005 conviction for felonious assault and a
2013 conviction for having weapons while under disability, and the nature of his
violations, the trial court elected to revoke Wiggins’s judicial release and reimpose
-3-
Case No. 3-21-25
the balance of his prison sentence. The trial court filed a judgment entry to this
effect on November 16, 2021.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶6} On December 23, 2021, Wiggins filed a notice of appeal.1 He raises the
following assignment of error for our review:
At a hearing on revocation of judicial release, the trial court
abused its discretion by examining the sentences [sic] factors of
Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.12, 2929.13, 2929.14, by ignoring
that the defendant-appellant had long standing issues for
substance abuse for which the conditions of community control
imposed when judicial release was granted, failed to address or
refer the defendant-appellant to treatment.
III. Discussion
{¶7} In his assignment of error, Wiggins argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by revoking his judicial release. Specifically, he maintains that it was
unreasonable for the trial court to revoke his judicial release because the trial court
did not require him to attend and complete a drug treatment program as a condition
of his community-control supervision. Wiggins argues the trial court “set up a self-
fulfilling prophecy and set [him] up to fail” when it released him from prison
without ordering drug treatment, and he asserts that the trial court should have
continued his judicial release, with an added drug-treatment condition, rather than
return him to prison.
1
Although untimely filed, we granted Wiggins leave to file a delayed appeal on January 13, 2022.
-4-
Case No. 3-21-25
{¶8} Ohio’s judicial release statute, R.C. 2929.20, provides in relevant part:
If the court grants a motion for judicial release under this section, the
court shall order the release of the eligible offender, shall place the
eligible offender under an appropriate community control sanction,
under appropriate conditions, and under the supervision of the
department of probation serving the court and shall reserve the right
to reimpose the sentence that it reduced if the offender violates the
sanction. If the court reimposes the reduced sentence, it may do so
either concurrently with, or consecutive to, any new sentence imposed
upon the eligible offender as a result of the violation that is a new
offense.
R.C. 2929.20(K). “[W]hen a defendant is granted judicial release, he or she has
already served a period of incarceration, and the remainder of that prison sentence
is suspended pending either the successful completion of a period of community
control or the defendant’s violation of a community control sanction.” State v.
Alexander, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-07-45, 2008-Ohio-1485, ¶ 7. “While out on
judicial release, if ‘an offender violates his community control requirements, the
trial court may reimpose the original prison sentence and require the offender to
serve the balance remaining on the original term.’” State v. Phipps, 3d Dist.
Crawford No. 3-20-07,
2021-Ohio-258, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Mann, 3d Dist.
Crawford No. 3-03-42,
2004-Ohio-4703, ¶ 8. However, “[t]he trial court may not
alter the defendant’s original sentence except to reimpose the sentence
consecutively to or concurrently with a new sentence it imposes as a result of the
judicial release violation that is a new criminal offense.” State v. Jones, 3d Dist.
Mercer Nos. 10-07-26 and 10-07-27,
2008-Ohio-2117, ¶ 15.
-5-
Case No. 3-21-25
{¶9} A trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s judicial release based
on a violation of the conditions of his or her community-control supervision will not
be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Arm, 3d Dist. Union Nos. 14-
14-03 and 14-14-04, 2014-Ohio-3771, ¶ 22. An abuse of discretion implies that the
trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably. State v. Adams,
62
Ohio St.2d 151, 157-158 (1980).
{¶10} Here, Wiggins argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
revoking his judicial release because the trial court did not tailor the conditions of
his community-control supervision to address the issues underlying his criminal
behavior. He essentially argues that in the absence of a drug-treatment condition, it
was inevitable that he would violate the conditions of his community-control
supervision. We do not accept this argument. While it might have been prudent for
the trial court to include a drug-treatment condition when it granted Wiggins judicial
release, it had no duty to do so. State v. Webb, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-20-17,
2021-Ohio-2637, ¶ 11. Irrespective of the steps the trial court took to aid Wiggins
in addressing his drug use, Wiggins had a freestanding obligation to refrain from
using drugs. Nothing precluded Wiggins from seeking out and entering a drug
treatment program of his own volition. Rather than doing so, Wiggins failed to
report to his supervising officer, admitted using drugs, and refused to submit to drug
testing. These infractions, coupled with Wiggins’s fairly extensive criminal history,
-6-
Case No. 3-21-25
amply support the trial court’s decision to revoke Wiggins’s judicial release and
reimpose the balance of his prison term. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion.
{¶11} Wiggins’s assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Conclusion
{¶12} For the foregoing reasons, Wiggins’s assignment of error is overruled.
Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned
and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common
Pleas.
Judgment Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
/jlr
-7-
