community control revocation hearing in Ohio

2025In addition to the due-process rights outlined above, the trial court “must afford an offender an opportunity for allocution at a community-control- revocation hearing before imposing a sentence for violating the conditions of community control.” State v. Jackson, 2016-Ohio-8127, ¶ 1 .

2024See State v. Jung, 2018-Ohio-1514, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.) (applying the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to review a sentence imposed after the defendant’s community control was revoked); State v. Jackson, 2016-Ohio-8127, ¶ 11 (concluding that a community-control-revocation hearing is a sentencing hearing for purposes of R.C. 2929.19 and Crim.R. 32(A)(1)).

2024Lammie at ¶ 15 , citing State v. Miller, 42 Ohio St.2d 102, 104 (1975). {¶13} Crim.R. 32.3 provides the procedural framework for a community- control-revocation hearing.

2022Id., quoting State v. Miller, 42 Ohio St.2d 102, 104 (1975), quoting Morrissey at 489 . {¶15} Since a community-control-revocation hearing is not a criminal proceeding, the State is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a violation of the terms of community control occurred.

2025State v. Mayle, 2017-Ohio-8942, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.).

2025Id. {¶30} However, a defendant is entitled to due process.

2022Id., quoting State v. Miller, 42 Ohio St.2d 102, 104 (1975), quoting Morrissey at 489 . {¶15} Since a community-control-revocation hearing is not a criminal proceeding, the State is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a violation of the terms of community control occurred.

2021Id., quoting State v. Miller, 42 Ohio St.2d 102, 104 (1975), quoting Morrissey at 489 . {¶9} Since a community-control-revocation hearing is not a criminal proceeding, “the State is not required to prove a violation of the terms of community control beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at ¶ 6, citing Ryan at ¶ 7.

2020See State v. Jackson, 150 Ohio St.3d 362 , 2016-Ohio-8127, at ¶ 11 , quoting State v. Heinz, 146 Ohio St.3d 374 , 2016-Ohio-2814, ¶ 15 , quoting State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2004-Ohio-7110, ¶ 17 , (“We reaffirmed Fraley * * *, stating in regard to a community-control-revocation hearing that ‘“[a]t this second hearing, the court sentences the offender anew and must comply with the relevant sentencing statutes.”’”). {¶18} Therefore, under the facts presented, we cannot conclude that the trial court made the statutory findings as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) each time it sentenced Beall

2020See State v. Jackson, 150 Ohio St.3d 362 , 2016-Ohio-8127, at ¶ 11 , quoting State v. Heinz, 146 Ohio St.3d 374 , 2016-Ohio-2814, ¶ 15 , quoting State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2004-Ohio-7110, ¶ 17 , (“We reaffirmed Fraley * * *, stating in regard to a community-control-revocation hearing that ‘“[a]t this second hearing, the court sentences the offender anew and must comply with the relevant sentencing statutes.”’”). {¶18} Therefore, under the facts presented, we cannot conclude that the trial court made the statutory findings as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) each time it sentenced Beall

2026“The trial court has the sound discretion to determine the trustworthiness of the hearsay evidence presented.” Thoman, at ¶ 10, citing State v. Mullins, 2022-Ohio-4686, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.). {¶16} Finally, “[a]t a community-control-revocation hearing the trial court, being in the better position to observe the witnesses and hear their testimony, is entitled to deference on issues of witness credibility and weight of the evidence.” State v. Boykins, 2015-Ohio-1341 , ¶ 27 (3d Dist.). {¶17} In the instant cases, at the community control violation hearing held on July 2, 2025, the prosecution presented

2025“Indeed, hearsay evidence can be permissible in a community-control- revocation hearing, even if it would have been inadmissible in a criminal trial.” Id. {¶21} “‘Whether hearsay evidence is sufficiently trustworthy to be worth considering during a revocation hearing lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.’” State v. Mullins, 2022-Ohio-4686, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Stringer, 2021-Ohio- 2608, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.).

2009We disagree. {¶ 37} A community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, therefore the State does not have to establish a violation with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. *Page 7 State v. Payne , Warren App. No. CA2001-09-081, 2002-Ohio-1916 , citing State v. Hylton (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 778 , 782 , 600 N.E.2d 821 .

2009We disagree. {¶ 37} A community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, therefore the State does not have to establish a violation with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. *Page 7 State v. Payne , Warren App. No. CA2001-09-081, 2002-Ohio-1916 , citing State v. Hylton (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 778 , 782 , 600 N.E.2d 821 .

2024“Because a community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, the state does not have to establish a violation with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Wolfson, 2004-Ohio-2750, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.); see, also, State v. Payne, 2002 WL 649403 (12th Dist.

2011"Because a community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, the State does not have to establish a violation with proof beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Wolfson, Lawrence App. No. 03CA25, 2004-Ohio-2750, ¶7 .

2023Greene No. 2017-CA- 51, 2018-Ohio-1227, ¶ 11 ; Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio App.3d 26, 34 (10th Dist.1991). {¶19} A community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, and therefore, the state is not obligated to prove a violation beyond a reasonable doubt.

2016“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 -10- Case No. 4-16-09 reliable and relevant evidence to determine whether the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation.” Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio App.3d 26 , 601 N.E.2d 61 (10th Dist.1991). {¶27} Nevertheless, in order to find that an offender violated the terms of his community control at a community control-revocation hearing, the State must show “substantial evidence.” State v. Boykins, 3d Dist.

2022In addition, Depinet contends the trial court erred by failing to calculate his jail-time credit on the record at the revocation hearing. i. The trial court imposed a stated prison term as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(a). {¶11} At a community-control revocation hearing, “the court sentences the offender anew and must comply with the relevant sentencing statutes.” State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2004-Ohio-7110, ¶ 17 .

2022In addition, Depinet contends the trial court erred by failing to calculate his jail-time credit on the record at the revocation hearing. i. The trial court imposed a stated prison term as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(a). {¶11} At a community-control revocation hearing, “the court sentences the offender anew and must comply with the relevant sentencing statutes.” State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2004-Ohio-7110, ¶ 17 .

2026State v. Thoman, 2024-Ohio-2219, ¶ 10 (3d Dist.), citing State v. Westrick, 2011-Ohio-1169, ¶ 24 (3d Dist.). “‘The rationale behind this exception is, given the informality of this type of proceeding, the trier of fact should be able to consider any reliable and relevant evidence to -6- Case Nos. 3-25-23, 3-25-24 determine whether the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation. * * * Indeed, hearsay evidence can be permissible in a community-control-revocation hearing, even if it would have been inadmissible in a criminal trial.’” Thoman, at ¶ 10, quoting State v. Blankenship, 20

2025“Indeed, hearsay evidence can be permissible in a community-control- revocation hearing, even if it would have been inadmissible in a criminal trial.” Id. {¶21} “‘Whether hearsay evidence is sufficiently trustworthy to be worth considering during a revocation hearing lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.’” State v. Mullins, 2022-Ohio-4686, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Stringer, 2021-Ohio- 2608, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.).

2025State v. Klosterman, 2016-Ohio-232, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.) (“The failure to object to a due process violation during a community control revocation hearing waives all but plain error.”).

2024Darke Nos. 2015-CA-9, 2015-CA-10, 2016-Ohio-232, ¶ 15 .

2021The court also found he was not amenable to community control and imposed concurrent prison terms of 17 months 6 Case No. 2021-L-032 on count one, trafficking in L.S.D., and 11 months on count two, aggravated possession of drugs. {¶21} Mr. Ryan raises one assignment of error on appeal: {¶22} “The trial court erred in issuing probation restrictions that were in violation of the provisions of the Ohio Medical Marijana [sic] laws.” Sentencing Standard of Review {¶23} “‘A community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, so the state is not required to establish a violation of the term

2021The court also found he was not amenable to community control and imposed concurrent prison terms of 17 months 6 Case No. 2021-L-032 on count one, trafficking in L.S.D., and 11 months on count two, aggravated possession of drugs. {¶21} Mr. Ryan raises one assignment of error on appeal: {¶22} “The trial court erred in issuing probation restrictions that were in violation of the provisions of the Ohio Medical Marijana [sic] laws.” Sentencing Standard of Review {¶23} “‘A community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, so the state is not required to establish a violation of the term

2022Cuyahoga No. 103737, 2016-Ohio- 4867, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Armstrong, 56 Ohio App.3d 105, 107 (8th Dist.1988). -8- Case No. 3-21-20 However, because a community-control-revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, “‘[a] defendant faced with revocation of probation or parole is not afforded the full panoply of rights given to a defendant in a criminal prosecution’ and ‘the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2) do not apply to a community-control-violation hearing.’” Id., quoting State v. Parsons, 4th Dist.

2022Cuyahoga No. 103737, 2016-Ohio- 4867, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Armstrong, 56 Ohio App.3d 105, 107 (8th Dist.1988). -8- Case No. 3-21-20 However, because a community-control-revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, “‘[a] defendant faced with revocation of probation or parole is not afforded the full panoply of rights given to a defendant in a criminal prosecution’ and ‘the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2) do not apply to a community-control-violation hearing.’” Id., quoting State v. Parsons, 4th Dist.

2022See id. {¶22} Therefore, we conclude that the community-control-revocation hearing comported with the requirements of due process and Crim.R. 32.3. -10- Case No. 3-21-20 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Blankenship’s community control, and thus, we overrule his assignment of error.

2021“Generally, without affirmative evidence in the record indicating otherwise, we presume regularity in trial court proceedings.” Id., citing State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 , 2012-Ohio-5636, ¶ 19 . {¶13} Presuming regularity in this instance would require us to presume that the trial court and the parties would not have proceeded past the evidentiary phase of the proceedings without Grow indicating her willingness to admit to violating the terms and conditions of her community control.

2019Thus hearsay or other evidence that may have been inadmissible during a criminal trial can be permissible in a community control revocation hearing.3 State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808 , 6th Dist.

2019Erie No. E-05-052, 2006-Ohio-2353, ¶ 21 . {¶21} Moreover, because a community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, the State is not required to establish a violation of the terms of community control beyond a reasonable doubt.

2019However, from the trial court’s perspective, the notice does little more than set a ceiling on the potential prison term, leaving the court with the discretion to impose a lesser term than the offender was notified of when a lesser term is appropriate.” State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 , 2004-Ohio-4746 , 814 N.E.2d 837, ¶ 23 . {¶ 18} The trial court is not required to notify a defendant at a community control revocation hearing of the maximum prison sentence that may be imposed.

2019However, from the trial court’s perspective, the notice does little more than set a ceiling on the potential prison term, leaving the court with the discretion to impose a lesser term than the offender was notified of when a lesser term is appropriate.” State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 , 2004-Ohio-4746 , 814 N.E.2d 837, ¶ 23 . {¶ 18} The trial court is not required to notify a defendant at a community control revocation hearing of the maximum prison sentence that may be imposed.

2015Muskingum No. CT2005-0024, 2006-Ohio-783, ¶15 (“The trial court was conducting a [community control] revocation hearing.

2008No. CT2005-0024, 2006-Ohio-783 , at ¶ 15 , held that the right of allocution does not apply at a community control revocation hearing, stating: {¶ 18} "The sentence that the appellant would receive if he violated community control sanctions had already been decided and announced by the trial court nearly two years earlier at the original sentencing hearing.

2026State v. Thoman, 2024-Ohio-2219, ¶ 10 (3d Dist.), citing State v. Westrick, 2011-Ohio-1169, ¶ 24 (3d Dist.). “‘The rationale behind this exception is, given the informality of this type of proceeding, the trier of fact should be able to consider any reliable and relevant evidence to -6- Case Nos. 3-25-23, 3-25-24 determine whether the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation. * * * Indeed, hearsay evidence can be permissible in a community-control-revocation hearing, even if it would have been inadmissible in a criminal trial.’” Thoman, at ¶ 10, quoting State v. Blankenship, 20

2026State v. Thoman, 2024-Ohio-2219, ¶ 10 (3d Dist.), citing State v. Westrick, 2011-Ohio-1169, ¶ 24 (3d Dist.). “‘The rationale behind this exception is, given the informality of this type of proceeding, the trier of fact should be able to consider any reliable and relevant evidence to -6- Case Nos. 3-25-23, 3-25-24 determine whether the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation. * * * Indeed, hearsay evidence can be permissible in a community-control-revocation hearing, even if it would have been inadmissible in a criminal trial.’” Thoman, at ¶ 10, quoting State v. Blankenship, 20

2025However, “Ohio courts have repeatedly stated that a community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial.” State v. Hampton, 2023-Ohio-1591, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.).

2025“Accordingly, the requirements for a full Crim.R. 11(C)(2) plea colloquy do not apply to a community-control-violation hearing, because a defendant faced with revocation of community control is not afforded the full spectrum of rights given to a defendant in a criminal prosecution.” Id.

2025“Rather, the State need only present substantial evidence of a violation of the defendant’s community control.” Id. {¶16} Further, we review a trial court’s finding of a community-control violation under an abuse of discretion standard, and a “‘trial court’s decision to revoke community control even for a ‘minor’ violation, is not an abuse of discretion.’” State v. Bika, 2019- Ohio-3841, ¶ 28 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Solomon, 2019-Ohio-1841, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.).