Legal Case

State v. Rogers

Citation

2025 Ohio 2397

Court

Unknown Court

Decided

July 7, 2025

Importance

35%

Standard

Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Constitutional Law

Case Summary

[Cite as State v. Rogers, 2025-Ohio-2397.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2024-A-0102 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas MELISSA ROGERS, Trial Court No. 2023 CR 00504 Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: July 7, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed April R. Grabman, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Dane R. Hixon, Assistant Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Richard E. Hackerd, 55 Public Square, Suite 2100, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant). MATT LYNCH, J. {¶1} Appellant, Melissa Rogers, appeals from the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, finding she violated the terms of her community control and sentencing her to 15 months in prison. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. {¶2} In January 2024, Rogers pleaded guilty to an amended Count One of the indictment, Attempted Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.03(B) and 2925.03(A)(2)(C)(1)(a). In late August 2024, the trial court sentenced Rogers to two years of community control, the conditions of which included entering and completing the Northeast Ohio Community Alternative Program (“NEOCAP”), a residential substance abuse treatment program for offenders. {¶3} On September 10, 2024, the Ashtabula County Adult Probation Department filed a “complaint for violation of probation,” alleging Rogers did not comply with the NEOCAP condition of her community control because she was terminated unsuccessfully from the program. {¶4} On November 4, 2024, Rogers waived her right to a probable cause hearing and requested the trial court proceed to a final hearing. The trial court heard testimony from Rogers and her probation officer, Aaron Thomas Hough. {¶5} Hough testified he had been supervising Rogers since her sentencing hearing on August 20, 2024. He explained Rogers entered NEOCAP on August 28. Several days later, NEOCAP informed Hough’s immediate supervisor that Rogers refused to participate and NEOCAP was terminating her unsuccessfully from the program. On September 5, Hough transported Rogers from NEOCAP to the Ashtabula County Jail. On September 10, he filed the underlying complaint. {¶6} Rogers testified she went into the NEOCAP program with an “open-mind,” and she “ended up getting kidney stones.” She explained she develops kidney stones frequently, and her doctor advised her to go to the emergency room when they occur. Rogers further testified that the NEOCAP administrators refused to get her medical assistance or medication and refused to allow her to call her doctor. She “just laid there for two days,” and “they never even checked on” her. This occurred during her third or fourth day in the program. The nurse did not visit or assess her and simply told the administrators to inform Rogers to “stay in bed and drink water.” In a separate incident, PAGE 2 OF 11 Case No. 2024-A-0102 when Rogers was upset after learning her home had been robbed and her dog poisoned, the NEOCAP administrators put her in “a little cell” called the “dog room,” which was “covered in pictures of dogs,” and they “left her there for hours.” She told the NEOCAP administrators she did not want to participate in the program and to take her back to jail. {¶7} The trial court decided to continue the hearing due to time constraints, further stating: However, before we meet again and – I do want some information here from NEOCAP. I would like information here from NEOCAP, as I don’t have enough information here. I’ve heard testimony from both on behalf of the State, as well as on behalf of the defense. But I’d like some information here from the NEOCAP facility as it relates to the situation. And I don’t know if there’s something that exists or is created by NEOCAP or whatever it may be, but there is information that I would like here in addition to what I’ve heard today. So because we have to break anyway due to time, this would be a good time for either side or both sides to get that information. {¶8} On November 20, 2024, at the continuation of the hearing, the State presented Jennifer Melvin, the director of the NEOCAP female facility, as a witness. Melvin testified Rogers made several medical comp

NEW FEATURE

Agentic Research

Unlock the power of AI-driven legal research. Our advanced agentic system autonomously analyzes cases, identifies patterns, and delivers comprehensive insights in minutes, not hours.

AI-Powered Analysis
Precise Legal Research
10x Faster Results

Join 2,500+ legal professionals

Case Details

Case Details

Legal case information

Status

Decided

Date Decided

July 7, 2025

Legal Significance

Case importance metrics

Importance Score
Standard
Score35%
Citations
0
Legal Topics
Due Process
Criminal Procedure

Metadata

Additional information

AddedJul 7, 2025
UpdatedAug 4, 2025

Quick Actions

Case management tools

AI-enhanced legal analysis

Case Summary

Summary of the key points and legal principles

Legal Topics

Areas of law covered in this case

Due Process
Criminal Procedure

Case Information

Detailed case metadata and classifications

Court Proceedings

Date FiledJuly 7, 2025
Date DecidedJuly 7, 2025

Document Details

Times Cited
0
Importance Score
0.3
Judicial Panel
M. Lynch
Opinion Author
M. Lynch

Similar Cases

5

Cases with similar legal principles and precedents

James Jones v. Harry

80% match
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Aug 2025

BLD-186 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-1387 ___________ JAMES JONES, Appellant v. DR. HARRY, COMMISSIONER, SECRETARY, PA DOC; J. TERRA, SUPERINTENDENT; KERI MOORE, CHIEF GRIEVANCE OFFICER; C.E.R.T., CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-05692) District Judge: Honorable Mia R. Perez ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 July 24, 2025 Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 7, 2025) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Inmate James Jones appeals pro se the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint. We will summarily affirm. I. On the morning of August 14, 2024, at the State Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Pennsylvania, Correctional Emergency Response Team (“CERT”) officers visited Jones in his housing cell, subjected him to a strip search, and ordered him to carry his mattress to the lower level for screening. While he transported his mattress, the officers searched his living quarters. Shortly after returning to his cell, Jones discovered that the CERT officers had removed two cases of his legal documents and discarded them in the housing unit’s trash bin, which he could see from his cell door. Jones called out to officers on the unit floor and asked them to retrieve his legal materials from the garbage, but they refused. Jones requested assistance from his Unit Manager, numerous corrections officers, and members of the cleaning crew—all refused to retrieve his documents from the bin. Jones initiated this action against Department of Corrections’ Commissioner Dr. Harry, Superintendent Terra, CERT officers, Chief Grievance Officer Kerri Moore, and anyone else that may have been involved, referring to them as “Defendants et al.” Jones sued the defendants in their official and individual capacities, alleged violations of his First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and brought a claim of negligence against Terra. The District Court screened Jones’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), dismissed it with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part, and granted Jones leave 2 to amend his complaint within thirty days. In its subsequent order denying Jones’ motion for reconsideration, the District Court reiterated that he could file an amended complaint within thirty days or proceed with his original filing, but that if Jones opted to stand on his original complaint, it would “issue a final order dismissing the case.” Jones filed a notice of intent to stand on his original complaint. The District Court therefore dismissed all of Jones’ federal claims with prejudice and dismissed his state law claim without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Jones appealed.1 II. We agree with the District Court’s analysis. As an initial matter, the District Court properly concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred Jones’ official capacity claims against all defendants, who are all state officials, for monetary damages. See Downey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 299, 309–10 (3d Cir. 2020). The District Court’s dismissal of Jones’ individual capacity claims against Moore was also proper, as a prisoner does not have a free-standing right to an effective grievance process, and an officer’s 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order dismissing Jones’ complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). Dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B) are governed by the same standard applicable to moti

Very Similar Similarity

The People of the State of Colorado v. Benjamin Eugene Davenport.

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-08"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:peopleofthestateofcoloradovdavenportno24sc625june3,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Benjamin Eugene Davenport</span>. <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 24SC625</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 3, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="163" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="163" data-sentence-id="180" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_180" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 22CA2273</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="221" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="221" data-sentence-id="237" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity

Commonwealth v. Wright, B.

80% match
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 45 WAL 2024 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Unpublished v. : Memorandum and Order of the : Superior Court at No. 478 WDA : 2023 entered on January 5, 2024, BRIAN K. WRIGHT, : affirming the Judgment of Sentence : of the Armstrong County Court of Petitioner : Common Pleas at No. CP-03-CR- : 0000200-2022 entered on March 23, 2023 ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2025, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Shifflett, __ A.3d __, 2025 WL 1535292 (Pa. 2025).

Very Similar Similarity

Commonwealth v. Long, S.

80% match
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 347 MAL 2024 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Unpublished v. : Memorandum and Order of the : Superior Court at No. 1463 MDA : 2023 entered on July 2, 2024, SAMANTHA MARIE LONG, : affirming the Judgment of Sentence : of the Cumberland County Court of Petitioner : Common Pleas at No. CP-21-CR- : 0000186-2023 entered on September 12, 2023 ORDER PER CURIAM DECIDED: June 25, 2025 AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2025, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Shifflett, __ A.3d __, 2025 WL 1535292 (Pa. filed May 30, 2025).

Very Similar Similarity

Douglas James Dyer v. The People of the State of Colorado

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:dyervpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc196june17,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Douglas James Dyer</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC196</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 17, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="157" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="157" data-sentence-id="174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-prop-ids="sentence_174"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA1081</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="215" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="215" data-sentence-id="231" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity