[Cite as State v. Farmer, 2017-Ohio-2995.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- :
:
BRIAN FARMER : Case No. 16-CA-99
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Municipal Court,
Case No. 15CRB00319
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 24, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
J. Michael King BRIAN J. FARMER, Pro Se
40 West Main Street 3859 Martinsburg Road
4th Floor Gambier, OH 43022
Newark, OH 43055
Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-99 2
Wise, Earle, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Brian Farmer, appeals the October 27, 2016
judgment entry of the Municipal Court of Licking County, Ohio, denying his motion for
injunctive relief. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On June 8, 2015, following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of
menacing by stalking in violation of R.C. 2903.211. By journal entry filed same date, the
trial court sentenced appellant to one hundred eighty days in jail, ninety days suspended,
and imposed three years of probation as directed by the probation officer. Appellant was
ordered to abide by a civil protection order issued by the Court of Common Pleas, and
have no contact with the victim and any of the witnesses and jurors. Appellant's
conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. Farmer, Licking No. 15 CA
0044, 2015-Ohio-5434.
{¶ 3} On October 25, 2016, appellant filed a motion for injunctive relief, seeking
to bar the probation department from imposing certain probationary restrictions. By
judgment entry filed October 27, 2016, the trial court converted the motion for injunctive
relief to a motion to modify probation conditions, and denied the motion.
{¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶ 5} "WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT ENTERING GRANTING
AN INJUNCTION BARRING THE ADULT PROBATION FROM IMPOSING
Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-99 3
RESTRICTIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND WHICH DON'T MEET THE JONES
TEST."
II
{¶ 6} "WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
ALLOWING IMPROPER PROBATIONARY RESTRICTIONS."
III
{¶ 7} "WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS BEING SUBJECTED TO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY BY HAVING ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS BEING ADDED TO HIS
SENTENCE BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT."
IV
{¶ 8} "WHETHER THE COURT AND PROBATION DEPARTMENT CAN USE
THE SINGLE VALIDATED RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL ON MISDEMEANOR
PROBATIONERS."
I, II, III, IV
{¶ 9} In his four assignments of error, appellant challenges the trial court's denial
of his motion for injunctive relief and his probationary restrictions.
{¶ 10} In his motion for injunctive relief filed October 25, 2016, appellant claimed
the "Adult Probation Department of the Licking County Municipal Court has imposed
probationary restrictions which are an abuse of discretion and a deprivation of rights
under the color of law." Specifically, appellant complained of a firearms prohibition, orders
to gain employment, receive a mental health evaluation, submit to random urinalysis,
submit to warrantless searches of his home and property, and be subjected to a Single
Validated Risk Assessment pursuant to R.C. 5120.114.
Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-99 4
{¶ 11} In its October 27, 2016 judgment entry denying the motion, the trial court
stated the following:
The court cannot grant a motion against itself and accordingly the
court will treat the motion for injunctive relief as a request to have his
conditions of probation modified.
That request to modify the conditions of his probation is hereby
denied. The probation department has authority to supervise the defendant
while he is on probation/community control. The court has reviewed the
matter and has determined that the probation department's requirements
as they relate to the defendant are not unreasonable nor do they violate his
rights.
If the defendant wishes a court to exercise injunctive relief in this
matter the undersigned suggests that he needs to seek a different remedy
in a different court.
{¶ 12} In support of his assignments of error, appellant cites the case of State v.
Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 53, 550 N.E.2d 469 (1990), wherein the Supreme Court of Ohio
stated the following:
In determining whether a condition of probation is related to the
"interests of doing justice, rehabilitating the offender, and insuring his good
behavior," courts should consider whether the condition (1) is reasonably
Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-99 5
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. (Citations omitted.)
{¶ 13} We are unable to review the complained of restrictions under Jones
because the record does not contain the orders of probation signed by appellant. This
court has no way of knowing what the probation orders consist of for our review. "[W]e
cannot discern from the information before us whether these conditions were actually
imposed. Accordingly, any comment on these specific alleged conditions would be purely
advisory, and we will not address them." State v. Dukes, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26531,
2015-Ohio-4714, ¶ 21.
{¶ 14} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court did not err in denying
appellant's motion.
{¶ 15} Assignments of Error I, II, III, and IV are denied.
Licking County, Case No. 16-CA-99 6
{¶ 16} judgment of the Municipal Court of Licking County, Ohio is hereby affirmed.
By Wise, Earle, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.
EEW/sg 414
State v. Farmer
Combined Opinion