[Cite as State v. Sherazee, 2015-Ohio-4160.]
COURT OF APPEALS
DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2014CAA120082
ZAHIR SHERAZEE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 07CRI060321
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 2, 2015
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
CAROL HAMILTON O'BRIEN WILLIAM T. CRAMER
DOUGLAS N. DUMOLT 470 Olde Worthington Road, Suite 200
Delaware County Prosecutor's Office Westerville, Ohio 43082
140 North Sandusky Street, 3rd Floor
Delaware, Ohio 43015
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Zahir Sherazee appeals the December 23, 2014
Judgment Entry and January 16, 2015 Amended Judgment Entry entered by the
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas revoking his judicial release and reimposing
the balance of his prison sentence. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Via Sentencing Entry of April 4, 2008, and via Amended Judgment Entry
of June 16, 2008, Appellant was sentenced to a prison term of four years and eleven
months and ordered to pay costs.
{¶3} On March 31, 2010, and via May 6, 2010 Amended Judgment Entry
Granting Judicial Release, the trial court granted judicial release for a period not to
exceed five years.
{¶4} On January 26, 2011, the State filed a motion to suspend community
control sanctions. On March 15, 2011, Appellant was reinstated to community control
adding additional sanction. The March 15, 2011 Judgment Entry on Reinstatement of
Community Control Sanctions of March 15, 2011, indicated Appellant admitted he was
in violation of sanctions "2 and 11 and General Term of Community Control No. 1 as
earlier entered by the Court on March 28, 2008." The trial court then reinstated
Appellant's period of Community Control, and ordered Appellant abide by all terms and
conditions imposed.
{¶5} On July 9, 2013, the State again filed a motion to suspend community
control sanctions. On July 19, 2013, the State filed an amended motion to suspend
community control sanctions. The State alleged Appellant changed his address without
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 3
approval, failed to follow instructions of his probation officer, violated curfew, and gave a
positive drug test for steroids.
{¶6} On February 10, 2014, via Judgment Entry on Reinstatement of
Community Control Sanctions, the trial court found per Appellant's admissions he was in
violation of Sanction Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 and General Terms of Community Control Nos.
4 and 8 as earlier entered by the Court on March 28, 2008, and reinstated on March 11,
2011.
{¶7} On March 27, 2014, the State filed an amended motion to suspend
community control sanctions adding another violation of Sanction 6 on February 24,
2014.
{¶8} The additional violation states,
In violation of Sanction No. 6 states: "The Defendant shall not
consume or possess any Controlled Substance as defined by Section
3719.01(C) of the Ohio Revised Code." The Defendant tested positive for
steroids specifically Nandrolone from a specimen obtained from the
Defendant by his Probation Officer on February 24, 2014.
{¶9} The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion on November 7, 2014.
The trial court found the only issue in question to be the additional violation of Sanction
6 filed on March 27. 2014.
{¶10} Appellant admitted to the violation, and the trial court found Appellant was
in violation of Sanction 6. The trial court found Appellant's judicial release should be
revoked and the remaining sentence on Counts one, ten, fourteen and twenty should be
imposed.
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 4
{¶11} On December 23, 2014, the trial court, via Judgment Entry on Judicial
Release Violation, found Appellant in violation of the sanctions of his judicial release.
The Court further found Appellant's judicial release should be revoked and the
remaining sentence as to Count One imposed. The trial court found Appellant was no
longer amenable to judicial release and a prison sentence would be consistent with the
purposes and principles of sentencing. The court ordered Appellant should return to
prison to serve the balance of the four year eleven month sentence imposed on April 4,
2008. The trial court credited Appellant with 787 days of jail time credit, including the
time served before Appellant was granted judicial release. Appellant was also ordered
to pay the costs of prosecution.
{¶12} Via Amended Judgment Entry of January 16, 2015, the trial court found
Appellant was no longer amenable to judicial release and a prison sentence would be
consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. The trial court ordered
Appellant should return to prison to serve the balance of the four year eleven month
sentence imposed on April 4, 2008. The trial court granted 787 jail time credit, including
the time Appellant served before being granted judicial release. Again, Appellant was
ordered to pay the costs of prosecution.
{¶13} Appellant appeals, assigning as error:
{¶14} "I. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS
AND APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT ADVERSE
WITNESSES BY RELYING ON HEARSAY REGARDING THE RESULTS OF DRUG
TESTS TO PROVE A COMMUNITY CONTROL VIOLATION.
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 5
{¶15} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS' DISCRETION BY REVOKING
JUDICIAL RELEASE AND REINSTATING THE PREVIOUSLY SUSPENDED PRISON
TERM."
I. and II.
{¶16} As Appellant's assigned errors raise common and interrelated issues; we
will address the arguments together.
{¶17} Appellant argues the trial court erred in finding he violated the terms and
conditions of his community control; thereby, revoking his judicial release and ordering
he return to prison to serve the remaining balance of his term.
{¶18} The trial court granted Appellant's motion for judicial release via Judgment
Entry Granting Judicial Release on March 31, 2010, incorporating all conditions set forth
in the Amended Judgment Entry on Sentence of June 16, 2008.
{¶19} The June 16, 2008 Amended Judgment Entry on Sentence reads, in
pertinent part,
6. The Defendant shall not consume or possess any Controlled
Substance as defined by Section 3719.01(C) of the Ohio Revised Code.
7. The Defendant, pursuant to the directions of a Probation Officer
duly attached to Adult Court Services or the Ohio Adult Parole Authority,
shall submit to periodic and random urinalysis testing.
{¶20} R.C. 3719.01(C) states,
{¶21} (C) “Controlled substance” means a drug, compound, mixture,
preparation, or substance included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V.
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 6
{¶22} Mark Taglione of Delaware County Adult Court Services acted as
Appellant's Probation Officer herein. Mr. Taglione testified at the hearing herein,
Q. Thank you. We're here regarding a violation that the defendant
had tested positive for a controlled substance; is that correct?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. When did you receive information that the defendant had tested
positive?
A. Let's see. The date it was reported back to me was March 24th,
2014.
Q. Who does your office test through?
A. We test through Alere Toxicology services. And if I may add,
Alere Toxicology will send their specimens that has to do with steroid use
to a lab called Aegis, A-E-G-I-S.
Q. Did you receive results back regarding this case from those
laboratories?
A. I did, sir.
MR. DUMOLT: If I may approach, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may.
BY MR. DUMOLT:
Q. Mr. Taglione, I'm showing you what's been marked as State's
Exhibit 1. Can you look at the date on there and see if that is the old test
or the new test?
A. This is the old test.
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 7
Q. What was the date on that?
A. 6-24 of '13.
Q. State's Exhibit 2 now. What are we looking at?
A. This is the newer test.
Q. What is the date on that?
A. 2-24-14.
Q. Who did both of these exhibits refer to?
A. Mr. Zahir Sherazee.
Q. Do both of them indicate - - what do both of them indicate?
A. They were positive for steroids.
Q. Does this give any specifics about what type of steroids they're
positive for?
A. On the second one that I have in my hand, it was positive for
nandrolone.
Q. Where is it on that sheet?
A. Midway down on the sheet.
Q. I'm sorry, where?
A. Right here (indicating).
Q. And then if you look at the first one, State's Exhibit 1, what does
it indicate he's positive for on that?
A. This one - - the older one states it's confirmed positive by
GC/MS for steroids. That's all it indicated on the sheet.
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 8
Q. Did you do some follow-up work with the companies to find more
information out about what these positive tests were?
A. I did.
Q. Are State's Exhibits 1 and 2 true and accurate copies of the
laboratory testing results you had from the urine samples that Mr.
Sherazee submitted in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Who's the one that collected the urine in this case?
A. It was me.
Q. You were the one who supervised it and had it sent out to the
lab?
A. That is correct.
***
A. I received an e-mail from Dr. Melinda Shelby on Friday, August
15th, 2014.
Q. Can you summarize the contents of that.
A. The main thrust of the letter indicates that specimen R4176471
collected February 24, 2014 was positive for nandrolone. Nandrolone is a
synthetic anabolic-androgenic steroid. It is available as various esters in
oil solution for intramuscular injection as well as for oral use. 19-
norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone are the major metabolites
used to detect nandrolone administration. Nandrolone metabolites of
endogenous origin have been reported but in general are believed to be
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 9
present in concentrations less than 2 nanograms a milliliter, with the
exception of pregnant women. Aegis Sciences Corporation uses a cutoff
of ten nanogram per milliliter for both 19-NA and 19-NE metabolites.
Q. So the substance that he had present in his system in February
of 2014 - - I'm sorry, the 2014 test, I should say.
A. 2-24-14.
Q. The substance he had present in his system at that time was not
present at the initial test back in 2013?
A. That is correct. They were two different steroid-type substances,
to the best of my knowledge.
Q. You are not a doctor, obviously.
***
Q. The drug in question, the nandrolone that we're here about
today, is a controlled substance?
A. To the best of my belief, nandrolone is a controlled substance,
according to Ohio Revised Code 3719.41(E)(1)(r) and it is a schedule III.
Q. As an individual on probation, is it a term of his probation that he
not possess or consume any controlled substances without a prescription?
A. It is.
Q. Did he provide you a valid prescription for nandrolone?
A. He did not.
Q. Did he provide a valid prescription for the other steroid
substance?
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 10
A. He did not.
Tr. at 9-15
{¶23} Appellant's Expert Witness Dr. Robert Belloto testified,
Q. Mr. Sherazee has retained your services for purposes of
reviewing the test results that have been presented to the Court showing
the presence of a steroid.
A. Yes.
Q. What documents did you review in regards to that issue?
A. The lab sent me about 400 pages of material on their testing,
their litigation packet, I guess they like to call it, after you gave them a
subpoena, I guess, and he signed a release.
Q. Would that be the Aegis lab?
A. Yes.
Q. A-E-G-I-S?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. 400 pages of material regarding what?
A. The testing that was done on the urine samples.
***
Q. This is the letter dated 2013. I believe today we're here with
regards to a sample given in 2014.
A. Right. That was for the nandrolone. I also have that packet.
There was actually no testing for nandrolone. What they do, again, is they
test for the metabolites. And the presumption is if I test positive for the
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 11
metabolite, then I would have used nandrolone. But nandrolone metabolites
are of androgenous origin, like if you eat certain pork - - androstenedione
used to be available as a dietary supplement. I don't think it's available any
more. But if anybody had any stockpiled and you take them, you would be
positive for these metabolites, because it was not a controlled substance
back then. Actually, they've declared it to be a controlled substance, but
there's actually no evidence that it does anything for muscle building.
Q. Correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying if there are other
substances that a person could ingest, they could - - when they're ingested,
they would present metabolites that would be - - potentially create a false
positive for the substance that they're testing for here?
A. Right. It goes to how that cutoff is set. You know, unless you
tested a sufficiently large population or you have done the appropriate
statistical homework, which most don't, you end up using confidence
intervals, which are inappropriate for making predictions because prediction
intervals are wider. The confidence interval talks about a mean, which is
the top peak of the bell-shaped curve. The prediction interval basically talks
about the whole distribution.
Q. They did not do prediction interval testing.
A. They gave no interval at all. All they said was that it was
positive. They gave some numbers on mass spectrometry, but they didn't
calculate what that was. And I didn't take the time to do that, because it
tends to take a lot of time. A lot of times, when I do do it for these tests that
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 12
are marginal, I get numbers that go down to zero, which means I can't
declare them statistically different from zero. So their cutoff - - as I said, I
have the paper. I think it would be very enlightening for the Court to read
that paper. It is from a statistics magazine. It's not very technical, but I
think he makes a lot of good points.
It's very hard to set a limit appropriately. You are making a
prediction. Most predictions are wrong, unless you are going to predict from
some sort of model.
Q. If the Court has to evaluate and determine whether steroids
were found in Mr. Sherazee's system based upon the sample that was
presented February 24th of this year, based upon your review of the results
from the laboratory by Aegis Corporation, do you think that their conclusion
that there is a presence of steroids can be relied upon by this Court?
A. No, not without that margin of error, the false positive/false
negative.
Tr. At 29-30; 37-39
{¶24} On cross-examination, Dr. Belloto testified,
Q. What was it positive for?
A. They tested positive for nandrolone metabolites, but those are
also endogenous.
Q. Without going into what else it could be the source of, is it also a
source that you had ingested nandrolone?
A. It could be, yes.
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 13
Q. Not could be. Is that one way that it can be - -
A. That's another way that it can be.
Q. You mentioned some other ways; it used to be in supplements in
the past. Correct?
A. That's correct. It still might be, but supplements are adulterated.
Q. Regardless, nandrolone is a controlled substance, right or
wrong. It's a controlled substance. Fair enough?
A. Yes.
Q. If you got it from a supplement or injected it yourself because
you bought it illicitly or you got it prescribed, nandrolone is broken down in
nandrolone metabolites.
A. That could be one explanation, yes.
Q. Okay. Since we are here about evidence, you know, we build
inferences in courts of law based on evidence here. So that's one thing that
could be inferred from the evidence before this Court. Fair enough?
A. Fair enough. That's why I brought up the transitivity paradox.
***
Q. The controlled substances in question - - I'm really bad at
pronouncing these things. Is stanozolol a controlled substance in Ohio?
A. I believe schedule III.
Q. So both of these are schedule III substances?
A. I believe so.
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 14
Q. Do you know anything about Alere or Aegis Laboratories? Are
you familiar with their work at all?
A. A little.
Q. Are they widely used by probation departments around the state
of Ohio and other places?
A. They've been used by many different companies. I don't really
know how they - -
Q. For private companies, as well, you do employee drug testing - -
they do it there, as well?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever been to any of their laboratories or facilities
before?
A. Not to Aegis or Alere.
Q. The gas chromatography and mass spectrometry used to do the
analysis in this case, isn't that the same technology that's used for OVI
analysis and approved by the department of health when they do blood
samples?
A. It depends on what it is. If it's alcohol, they're just using gas
chromatography. It depends on what the compound is.
Q. That's the GC of the GC/MS. Correct?
A. That's right.
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 15
Q. This is the same type of technology used for marijuana
metabolites; they'll say there wasn't marijuana in the system, there were
marijuana metabolites?
A. That's correct.
Q. This is deemed to be reliable by the department of health for
those type of purposes?
A. Well, what the department of health declares science and what
other people think is science are not necessarily the same thing.
Q. But that's what they've deemed at least in Ohio as right?
A. I don't know what their regulations are concerning this. I didn't
bother to look that stuff up.
Q. So you haven't testified as an expert witness before on alcohol
and drug usage in court?
A. I have. But when I looked at this, I didn't look at any Ohio
regulations.
Q. So you have never testified in Ohio before?
A. I mean Ohio regulations concerning this.
Q. I'm talking about the general testing methodology in Ohio.
That's one of the approved methods by the department of health. Correct?
A. They have methods that they approve, but again, that doesn't
mean there's no false positive/false negative to those tests.
Q. Of course not. That's something they deemed reliable enough
to use in a court of law. Fair enough?
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 16
A. Again, I question that conclusion.
Q. I am not asking you if you question it, I'm asking if it's true.
A. If they've declared it to be so and you are saying so, I guess it is.
Q. So both of these tests that we are referring to were metabolites
of the controlled substance found - - at least evidence of the controlled
substances found. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. There would not be - - typically, there would not be found the
actual substance itself in urine, because it would have already been through
the body at that point. We would be looking at blood if we were looking for
the substance, not the metabolite?
A. No. Often you can find the original compound secreted in the
urine in small amounts.
Q. That would be, even in the case of steroids - - what did you say -
- androgenous?
A. Yes.
Q. You could still find those in your urine, the actual substance itself
and not the metabolite?
A. Yes.
Q. What's the likelihood of that, rather than finding the metabolite?
A. It depends on the assay and how good it is. We're talking
nanogram amounts here, they're very small. So it's very tough to do.
Q. The smaller the quantity, the harder it is to detect those?
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 17
A. Yes.
Tr. at 42-43; 45-48.
{¶25} Probation-revocation hearings are not subject to the rules of evidence and
thus allow for the admission of hearsay evidence. Evid.R. 101(C)(3). The rationale for
the exception is that, since a probation revocation hearing is an informal proceeding, not
a criminal trial, the trier of fact should be able to consider any reliable and relevant
evidence to determine whether the probationer has violated the conditions of his
probation. State v. Miller (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 102, 106, 71 O.O.2d 74, 326 N.E.2d
259. The introduction of hearsay evidence into a probation-revocation hearing is
reversible error when that evidence is the only evidence presented and is crucial to a
determination of a probation violation. State v. Jones (May 9, 1991), 8th Dist. No.
58423, 1991 WL 76031, citing State v. Mingua (1974), 42 Ohio App.2d 35, 39–40, 71
O.O.2d 234, 327 N.E.2d 791.
{¶26} Here, the laboratory test results were not the only evidence presented at
trial. Rather, Appellant had previously admitted to the possession/consumption of
steroids.
{¶27} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's
judicial release, finding Appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community
control. The evidence presented demonstrates Appellant tested positive for a controlled
substance in addition to a number of other violations of his community control.
{¶28} Appellant's expert testified the test revealed nandrolone metabolites in the
urine and not nandrolone itself. He testified nandrolone is a controlled substance, which
would be very difficult to find in the urine itself.
Delaware County, Case No. 2014CAA120082 18
{¶29} The judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Farmer, J. and
Delaney, J. concur