[Cite as State v. Bliffin,
2025-Ohio-2809.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2025-A-0001
2025-A-0002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeals from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
DAVID MATTHEW BLIFFIN,
Trial Court Nos. 2024 CR 00314
Defendant-Appellant. 2024 CR 00343
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: August 11, 2025
Judgment: Affirmed
April R. Grabman, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, Dane R. Hixon, Assistant Prosecutor,
25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Eric D. Hall, P.O. Box 232, Medina, OH 44258 (For Defendant-Appellant).
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.
{¶1} Appellant, David Matthew Bliffin, appeals the judgments imposing prison
following his admission to violating probation in two separate cases. We affirm.
{¶2} In 2024, in the trial court case number 2024 CR 00314, Bliffin was charged
with breaking and entering, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.13(A) and (C);
and vandalism, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2909.05(B)(1)(b) and (E). In a
separate case, 2024 CR 00343, Bliffin was charged with attempted grand theft of a motor
vehicle, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(5).
{¶3} Following plea negotiations, Bliffin pleaded guilty to the breaking and
entering charge in case number 2024 CR 00314, and the State agreed to dismiss the
vandalism charge in that case. In case number 2024 CR 00343, Bliffin pleaded guilty to
an amended count of vandalism, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C.
2909.05(B)(1)(b) and (E). The trial court sentenced Bliffin to concurrent, two-year terms
of community control in each case. As part of the community control conditions, the trial
court required Bliffin to enter, and successfully complete, residential treatment at Alpha
House and follow any aftercare recommendations.
{¶4} Thereafter, the probation department filed complaints in each case alleging
that Bliffin violated the terms of his community control due to his unsuccessful discharge
from Alpha House. Bliffin waived the probable cause hearings and requested the matters
be set for final hearings. Following negotiations with the State, Bliffin admitted the
violations. The parties jointly recommended a 12-month term of incarceration in each
case, to run concurrently, with 134 days of jail credit. The trial court adopted the
recommendation and imposed sentences accordingly.
{¶5} Bliffin noticed appeals from each sentencing entry, and this court
consolidated the appeals for all purposes. In his sole assigned error, Bliffin argues:
{¶6} “The trial court erred when it sentenced appellant to a prison term when
clearly and convincingly the record failed to support its findings.”
{¶7} Bliffin challenges the trial court’s imposition of prison sentences on his
community control violations. “The Ohio Supreme Court has affirmed that a hearing to
impose a sentence for a violation of community control is a sentencing hearing and,
therefore, compliance with the relevant sentencing statutes is required.” State v. Scott,
2021-Ohio-1368, ¶ 13 (11th Dist.), citing State v. Jackson,
2016-Ohio-8127, ¶ 11.
PAGE 2 OF 7
Case Nos. 2025-A-0001 and 2025-A-0002
{¶8} “‘As with all felony sentences, we review the trial court’s sentencing decision
for a community control violation under the standard set forth by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).’”
State v. Hogya, 2024-Ohio-639, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Demangone, 2023-
Ohio-2522, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.); and State v. Elliott,
2023-Ohio-1459, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.).
{¶9} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides:
The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of
this section shall review the record, including the findings
underlying the sentence or modification given by the
sentencing court.
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise
modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may
vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing
court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for
review is not whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized
by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the
following:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s
findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division
(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section
2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶10} However, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes our review of a sentence under that
section “if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the
defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” “[T]o
be ‘authorized by law’ under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a sentence must comport with all
applicable mandatory sentencing provisions.” (Internal citation omitted.) State v. Sergent,
2016-Ohio-2696, ¶ 29.
PAGE 3 OF 7
Case Nos. 2025-A-0001 and 2025-A-0002
{¶11} Here, as discussed in our recitation of the facts, the parties jointly
recommended the concurrent, 12-month prison term imposed in each case. Thus, R.C.
2953.08(D)(1) precludes our review of these sentences if they are authorized by law.
{¶12} With respect to sentencing on community control violations, R.C.
2929.15(B)(1)(c) provides that, subject to certain conditions, a trial court may impose a
prison term on an offender who violates community control. The prison term may not
exceed the term specific in the notice provided to the offender at the sentencing hearing
on the underlying offense. R.C. 2929.15(B)(3). In addition, “[i]f the prison term is imposed
for any technical violation of the conditions of a community control sanction imposed for
a felony of the fifth degree, the prison term shall not exceed ninety days.” R.C.
2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i).
{¶13} In 2021, the legislature amended R.C. 2929.15 to include a definition of a
“technical violation” as follows:
As used in this section, “technical violation” means a violation
of the conditions of a community control sanction imposed for
a felony of the fifth degree. . . and to which neither of the
following applies:
(1) The violation consists of a new criminal offense that is a
felony or that is a misdemeanor other than a minor
misdemeanor, and the violation is committed while under the
community control sanction.
(2) The violation consists of or includes the offender’s
articulated or demonstrated refusal to participate in the
community control sanction imposed on the offender or any of
its conditions, and the refusal demonstrates to the court that
the offender has abandoned the objects of the community
control sanction or condition.
R.C. 2929.15(E). See State v. Duckett, 2021-Ohio-3110, ¶ 17 (4th Dist.), quoting State v.
Davis,
2018-Ohio-2672, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.) (discussing the prior judicially created definition
PAGE 4 OF 7
Case Nos. 2025-A-0001 and 2025-A-0002
of a “technical violation” as being “akin to ‘an administrative requirement facilitating
community control supervision’”).
{¶14} Accordingly, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes our review of the 12-month
sentences imposed for the community control violations unless: (1) the sentences exceed
the terms specified in the notices provided to Bliffin at the original sentencing hearings,
or (2) the sentences were imposed for technical violations of community control. However,
Bliffin makes no argument as to either issue. Because an appellant bears the burden of
affirmatively demonstrating error, Bliffin’s failure to address these issues is fatal to his
appeal. See Machlup v. Bowman, 2021-Ohio-4370, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.), citing Tally v. Patrick,
2009-Ohio-1831, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.) (“It is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively
demonstrate error on appeal.”). See also Yoel v. Yoel,
2012-Ohio-643, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.),
citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories,
61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980) (“The appellant
bears the burden of demonstrating error by reference to the record of proceedings . . . .”).
{¶15} Nonetheless, we note that, although the record does not contain a transcript
of the original sentencing hearings, the original sentencing entries each state that the
court advised Bliffin if he violated a condition of community control, it could impose on
him a prison term of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 months, to run concurrently or consecutively
with the sentence imposed in the other case. “When portions of the transcript necessary
for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has
nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but
to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings and affirm.” Knapp at 199.
Therefore, even had Bliffin argued that the trial court failed to notify him at the original
sentencing hearings that violations of his community control could result in prison terms
PAGE 5 OF 7
Case Nos. 2025-A-0001 and 2025-A-0002
of up to 12 months, without a transcript of the hearings, this court would presume the trial
court had properly provided him with the notifications. See also R.C. 2929.14(A)(5)
(authorizing definite prison term of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 months for a fifth-degree
felony).
{¶16} Further, the violations resulted from Bliffin’s failure to successfully complete
a residential treatment program as ordered in the original sentencing entries, and this
court has noted “that the failure to complete a treatment program when ordered to do so
as a condition of a community control sanction has often been found to be non-technical
in nature, although some of these cases were decided prior to adoption of the statutory
definition of a ‘technical violation’ on April 12, 2021.” Hogya, 2024-Ohio-639, at ¶ 14 (11th
Dist.), citing State v. Castner,
2020-Ohio-4950, ¶ 16; State v. Elliott,
2023-Ohio-1459, at
¶ 16 (1st Dist.); State v. Mannah,
2018-Ohio-4219, ¶ 15 (5th Dist.); and Davis, 2018-Ohio-
2672, at ¶ 18 (12th Dist.).
{¶17} Accordingly, Bliffin has not demonstrated that the prison terms imposed in
these cases were not authorized by law and because the trial court imposed the
sentences that were recommended jointly by Bliffin and the State, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)
precludes our review of the sentences.
{¶18} Therefore, the assigned error lacks merit.
{¶19} The judgments are affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
SCOTT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
PAGE 6 OF 7
Case Nos. 2025-A-0001 and 2025-A-0002
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignment of error
lacks merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgments of the Ashtabula
County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,
concurs
JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH,
concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 7 OF 7
Case Nos. 2025-A-0001 and 2025-A-0002
