[Cite as State v. Morgan,
2025-Ohio-3018.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLERMONT COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2025-02-009
: OPINION AND
- vs - JUDGMENT ENTRY
: 8/25/2024
COURTNEY E. MORGAN, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. 2025 CRB 3504
Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nicholas A. Horton,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
W. Stephen Haynes, Clermont County Public Defender, and Robert F. Benintendi,
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
____________
OPINION
SIEBERT, J.
{¶ 1} Courtney Morgan appeals the trial court's imposition of a probation fee and
prohibiting her use of drugs, alcohol, and marijuana as a community control sanction after
Clermont CA2025-02-009
she pled guilty to misdemeanor theft. The State concedes the trial court made an error in
both regards. We reverse the trial court's sentence and remand this case for
resentencing.
{¶ 2} Morgan entered a plea of guilty to misdemeanor theft in violation of R.C.
2913.02. The trial court imposed a suspended 60-day jail term, a $100 fine, and two years
of community control. The sentencing entry provided check-box options for supervision
by the court or the court's probation department, and the trial court marked the box for
court supervision.
{¶ 3} The terms of Morgan's community control included a theft class, 16 hours
of community service, a trespass order from Target stores, restitution of $211.32, and to
abstain from use of drugs, marijuana, and alcohol during the term of community control.
Subsequent paperwork required Morgan to pay a probation fee of $50 per month pursuant
to R.C. 2951.021.1
{¶ 4} Morgan appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court. In her sole
assignment of error, she asserts the trial court's imposition of a probation fee and its order
for her to abstain from use of drugs, marijuana, and alcohol violate Ohio law. The State
concedes the trial court erred. We review a trial court's misdemeanor sentence for an
abuse of discretion. State v. Kinsworthy, 2014-Ohio-2238, ¶ 31 (12th Dist.). But courts
"lack the discretion to make errors of law, particularly when the trial court's decision goes
against the plain language of a statute or rule." Johnson v. Abdullah,
2021-Ohio-3304, ¶
38-39. Therefore, we review the court's errors of law de novo, with further determination
of whether that error was harmless. See
id.
{¶ 5} Under Ohio law, "if the court places the offender under the control and
1. It is unclear from the record whether the court collected the $50 monthly probation fee since sentencing
Morgan.
-2-
Clermont CA2025-02-009
supervision of a probation agency, the court may require the offender, as a condition of
community control, to pay a monthly supervision fee of not more than fifty dollars." R.C.
2951.021(A)(1). A "probation agency" is defined as "a county department of probation, a
multicounty department of probation, a municipal court department of probation . . . or the
adult parole authority." R.C. 2951.01(E). This definition does not include the municipal
court itself. See id. Because the trial court's entry expressly placed Morgan under the
court's supervision and not its probation department, we conclude it made an error of law
and abused its discretion by imposing a supervision fee under R.C. 2951.021. Because
the court's error of law required Morgan to pay a supervision fee she would not have
otherwise been required to pay, the court's error was not harmless.
{¶ 6} The trial court's order for Morgan to abstain from use of drugs, marijuana,
and alcohol was also an abuse of discretion. "Generally, a court will not be found to have
abused its discretion in fashioning a community-control sanction as long as the condition
is reasonably related to the probationary goals of doing justice, rehabilitating the offender,
and insuring good behavior." State v. Chapman, 2020-Ohio-6730, ¶ 8. When imposing
community control sanctions, the court must consider whether it, "'(1) is reasonably
related to rehabilitating the offender, (2) has some relationship to the crime of which the
offender was convicted, and (3) relates to conduct which is criminal or reasonably related
to future criminality and serves the statutory ends of probation.'" Id. at ¶ 23, quoting State
v. Jones,
49 Ohio St.3d 51, 53 (1990).
{¶ 7} The State concedes "there is no information beyond what appears in the
record to indicate that these [substances] played any part whatsoever in Morgan's life."
Upon review, nothing in the record indicates these substances were a factor in Morgan's
commission of theft. As a result, we can only conclude the trial court abused its discretion
by imposing it.
-3-
Clermont CA2025-02-009
{¶ 8} Judgment reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
PIPER, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
The assignment of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the
order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby
is, reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the above Opinion.
It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Clermont County Municipal Court
for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment
Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.
/s/ Robin N. Piper, Presiding Judge
/s/ Mike Powell, Judge
/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge
-4-
