[Cite as State v. Williams,
2025-Ohio-461.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 114210
v. :
CLARENCE I. WILLIAMS, III, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 13, 2025
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-23-679917-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Andrea Isabella, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Clarence I. Williams, III, pro se.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
Defendant-appellant Clarence I. Williams, III (“Williams”) appeals
the trial court’s finding that he violated the terms of his community-control
sanctions. After a thorough review of the record and law, this court affirms.
I. Factual and Procedural History
In August 2023, Williams, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty
to attempted having weapons while under disability with forfeiture specifications.
He received a sentence of 18 months of community-control supervision. At the time
this matter occurred, Williams was already serving community-control sanctions in
another case, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-22-675221-A.
In February 2024, the court held a community-control sanctions
violation hearing. Williams and his counsel, as well as his probation officer,
appeared for the hearing. Williams’s probation officer detailed that Williams tested
positive for marijuana on January 22, 2024, and February 5, 2024. She informed
the court that
[h]e has a medical marijuana card; however, we know that it’s not
allowed. He has been given warnings for testing positive. He was asked
today if he was tested today if he would test positive today as well. He
just feels that he doesn’t need treatment and that he really feels that his
marijuana usage is helping him cope with his medication conditions,
and he wanted to discuss that with the Court, Your Honor. Thank you.
(Tr. 4.)
Williams’s counsel countered:
I’ve discussed this with my client and he’s going to admit the violation.
He has in fact tested positive for marijuana twice. Likely still positive
today.
Before the Court took the bench my client and I reviewed several
documents on his MyChart kind of outlining the extent of the medical
issues he has and numerous medications he’s on.
The conversation we had, Judge, was that although he may have
permission or a recommendation for the use of medical marijuana,
there are likely some questions that we didn’t have the answers to;
namely, I don’t know if the Court would, A, accept that
recommendation as marijuana still is regulated, whether or not it
would be allowable to use said marijuana on your community
control . . . .
(Tr. 5-6.)
The court interjected, noting that “[t]hat’s already been explained to
him and the answer is no.” (Tr. 6.) The court found Williams in violation of
community control and imposed a prison sentence.
In July 2024, Williams filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal
from the journal entry finding him in violation of community control, which this
court granted. Williams assigned one error1 for our review:
Appellant under R.C. § 3796.22 was [a] qualifying individual who was
improperly sentenced and maliciously prosecuted for testing positive
for smoking medical marijuana which was legally prescribed for him
under R.C. § 3796.06.
II. Law and Analysis
Initially, we note that to the extent Williams challenges the actual
conditions of his community-control sanctions, such argument is barred by res
judicata because Williams did not directly appeal his sentence when the community-
1 Williams filed two reply briefs after the State filed its appellee brief.
These reply
briefs appear to raise new assignments of error. However, Williams cannot add new
assignments of error in his reply brief without leave. See App.R. 16 and In re Z.M., 2023-
Ohio-1815, ¶ 17 (“However, the purpose of a reply brief is solely to rebut arguments raised
in the appellee's brief and may not be used to raise new issues or assignments of error not
raised in the primary brief. Cleveland v. Dancy, 2019-Ohio-2433, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.), citing
Young v. Kaufman,
2017-Ohio-9015, ¶ 44 (8th Dist.).”).
control conditions were imposed. State v. Hamilton,
2024-Ohio-4504, ¶ 10 (2d
Dist.). Moreover, we note that Williams received his medical marijuana card after
he was sentenced.
In his brief, Williams generally argues that he is a valid holder of a
medical marijuana prescription and argues that the General Assembly, in R.C.
3796.22, specifically provides that “[a] registered patient shall not be subject to
arrest or criminal prosecution for doing any of the following in accordance with this
chapter . . . .” We interpret this to mean that Williams is contesting the revocation
of his community control and imposition of a prison sentence.
Once a violation of community control is proven or admitted, we
review the decision to impose a portion of the suspended sentence for an abuse of
discretion. Cleveland v. ProTerra, Inc., 2021-Ohio-1086, ¶ 50 (8th Dist.).
The issue with Williams’s argument, however, is that community-
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.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Black, 2011-Ohio-1273, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.)
Therefore, Williams was not arrested or prosecuted based on his use of marijuana;
it was instead the fact that he had violated his community-control conditions by
testing positive for marijuana. We cannot find, then, that the trial court abused its
discretion in finding Williams in violation of his community-control sanctions,
especially since Williams was aware that using marijuana, even medical marijuana,
was forbidden under the terms of his community-control sanctions.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding Williams in violation
of his community-control sanctions and revoking community control.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCUR
