Youngstown Daily Legal News

Parole properly revoked for woman who tested positive for drugs twice

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: November 26, 2014

A woman recently lost her appeal when the 10th District Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision to revoke her community control and impose a two-year prison term.

Ebony Waddell appealed from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas decision, arguing that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The three-judge appellate panel disagreed and found that her attorney acted properly in presenting mitigating evidence and trying to get her community control sentence continued.

The facts of the case state that Waddell was charged with one count of felonious assault after she stabbed her boyfriend with a knife. A court-ordered mental examination found that Waddell suffered from schizophrenia but was competent to stand trial.

Following that finding, Waddell pleaded guilty to one count of attempted felonious assault. The trial court sentenced her to community control and ordered her to undergo drug screens, attend a drug treatment program and continue taking her medications.

Waddell partially complied with that order by attending the drug treatment program. However, she failed two subsequent drug tests in 12 days and her probation officer requested that her community control be revoked.

At a hearing on the matter, Waddell conceded that she had violated the court’s order by testing positive for drugs in two urine screenings. At the same hearing, the trial court revoked her probation and sentenced her to two years in prison.

On appeal, Waddell argued that her attorney should have requested a second, final probation revocation hearing in which her sentencing could have taken place.

Upon review, however, the appellate panel found that she did not clarify how that would have helped her situation. It specified that a second hearing is generally arranged so that the defendant can explain that they did not violate parole.

In Waddell’s case, it was clear that she had violated her parole and the judges noted that there were no grounds on which her counsel could have challenged the findings of the urine screenings.

“Here, we fail to find appellant suffered any prejudice by the trial court’s actions, and appellant fails to allege any,” Judge Susan Brown wrote for the court.

Waddell next asserted that her attorney failed to provide any mitigating information.

The record, however, showed that her counsel did present a mitigation argument.

“Trial counsel explained to the court that appellant had only participated in drug counseling for a very brief period, with her first drug screen coming back positive,” Brown stated.

The judges found that Waddell’s counsel noted that she was continuing to take her medications and could benefit from spending more time with the drug treatment program.

“For the foregoing reasons, we find appellant was not provided ineffective assistance of counsel,” Brown wrote.

Judges John Connor and Betsy Luper Schuster joined Brown in affirming the lower court’s judgment.

The case is cited State v. Waddell, case No. 14-372.

[Back]