neutral and detached hearing in Ohio

2014Id. {¶ 10} “At the final revocation hearing, the State must (1) provide the probationer 5 with written notice of the alleged violations of probation; (2) disclose the evidence against [her]; (3) give the probationer an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) allow [her] to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (5) afford [her] a neutral and detached hearing body; and, (6) provide the probationer with a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking probation.” Blakeman, supra, citing Gagn

2014Id. {¶ 10} “At the final revocation hearing, the State must (1) provide the probationer 5 with written notice of the alleged violations of probation; (2) disclose the evidence against [her]; (3) give the probationer an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) allow [her] to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (5) afford [her] a neutral and detached hearing body; and, (6) provide the probationer with a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking probation.” Blakeman, supra, citing Gagn

2025“A court must comply with the following minimum due process requirements at a final revocation hearing: (1) deliver a written notice of the claimed probation violations (2) disclose to the probationer the evidence against him, (3) provide the probationer with the opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses as well as documentary evidence, (4) provide the probationer the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, (5) provide the probationer with a neutral and detached hearing body, and (6) issue a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking pro

2022Auglaize Nos. 2-14-03 and 2-14-04, 2014-Ohio-3988, ¶ 14 , quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 (1972). {¶8} The due process requirements for revocation hearings further require (1) written notice of the claimed violation; (2) disclosure of the evidence against a defendant; (3) an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses and evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (6) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied upon and reasons for revocation.

2023Id. {¶ 9} “ ‘At the final revocation hearing, the State must (1) provide the probationer with written notice of the alleged violations of probation; (2) disclose the evidence against him; (3) give the probationer an opportunity to be heard in person and to present -5- witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) allow him to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (5) afford him a neutral and detached hearing body; and, (6) provide the probationer with a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking probation.’ ” State v. Klosterman, 2d Dist.

2023Osborne at ¶ 7, citing Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 786 . 5 {¶12} At the final hearing, Ms. Bentley was entitled to (1) written notice of the violations; (2) disclosure of the evidence against her; (3) opportunity to be heard and present witnesses and evidence; (4) right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (6) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking community control.

2025“A court must comply with the following minimum due process requirements at a final revocation hearing: (1) deliver a written notice of the claimed probation violations (2) disclose to the probationer the evidence against him, (3) provide the probationer with the opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses as well as documentary evidence, (4) provide the probationer the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, (5) provide the probationer with a neutral and detached hearing body, and (6) issue a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking pro

2023Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio App.3d 26, 34 , 601 N.E.2d 61 (10th Dist.1991), citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808 , 2006-Ohio-2353 , 853 N.E.2d 675, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.); State v. Miller, 42 Ohio St.2d 102 , 326 N.E.2d 259 (1975). {¶30} Appellee claims that this case is similar to State v. Graham, 5th Dist.

2025“A court must comply with the following minimum due process requirements at a final revocation hearing: (1) deliver a written notice of the claimed probation violations (2) disclose to the probationer the evidence against him, (3) provide the probationer with the opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses as well as documentary evidence, (4) provide the probationer the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, (5) provide the probationer with a neutral and detached hearing body, and (6) issue a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking pro

2023Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio App.3d 26, 34 , 601 N.E.2d 61 (10th Dist.1991), citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808 , 2006-Ohio-2353 , 853 N.E.2d 675, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.); State v. Miller, 42 Ohio St.2d 102 , 326 N.E.2d 259 (1975). {¶30} Appellee claims that this case is similar to State v. Graham, 5th Dist.

2025“A court must comply with the following minimum due process requirements at a final revocation hearing: (1) deliver a written notice of the claimed probation violations (2) disclose to the probationer the evidence against him, (3) provide the probationer with the opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses as well as documentary evidence, (4) provide the probationer the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, (5) provide the probationer with a neutral and detached hearing body, and (6) issue a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking pro

2023Darke Nos. 2015- CA-9, 2015-CA-10, 2016-Ohio-232, ¶ 15 , quoting State v. Gilreath, 2d Dist.

2025Under the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” State v. Brill, 2023-Ohio-404, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.), citing Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 19} “In order to find plain error under Crim.R. 52(B), there must be an error, the error must be an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings, and the error must have affected ‘substantial rights.’ ” Id., citing State v. Bowsher, 2009-Ohio-6524, ¶ 12 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).

2025Under the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” State v. Brill, 2023-Ohio-404, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.), citing Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 19} “In order to find plain error under Crim.R. 52(B), there must be an error, the error must be an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings, and the error must have affected ‘substantial rights.’ ” Id., citing State v. Bowsher, 2009-Ohio-6524, ¶ 12 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).

2025In State v. English, 2021-Ohio-850, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.), this court held the following regarding the process due prior to finding a CCS violation: A person subject to community control sanctions is entitled to certain due process rights if they are to be punished for a violation of their community control, including: (1) written notice of the claimed violations; (2) disclosure of the evidence against them; (3) an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (6)

2025Under the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” State v. Brill, 2023-Ohio-404, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.), citing Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 19} “In order to find plain error under Crim.R. 52(B), there must be an error, the error must be an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings, and the error must have affected ‘substantial rights.’ ” Id., citing State v. Bowsher, 2009-Ohio-6524, ¶ 12 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).

2025Under the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” State v. Brill, 2023-Ohio-404, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.), citing Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 19} “In order to find plain error under Crim.R. 52(B), there must be an error, the error must be an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings, and the error must have affected ‘substantial rights.’ ” Id., citing State v. Bowsher, 2009-Ohio-6524, ¶ 12 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).

2025Thomas at ¶ 8 ; see Gagnon at 786 . {¶31} “‘The privilege of probation [or community control] rests upon the probationer's compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege.’” Russell, 2009-Ohio-3147 , at ¶ 7 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 (5th Dist. 1990).

2024State v. Noonan, 2019-Ohio-2960, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.).

2014See, Gagnon, supra, at 786 .” (Parallel citations omitted.) {¶21} As the case at bar involves a juvenile, we note that the Supreme Court of Ohio stated in In re L.A.B., 121 Ohio St.3d 112 , 2009-Ohio-354 , syllabus: {¶22} “A probation revocation hearing is an adjudicatory hearing, which is held to determine whether a child is delinquent as defined by R.C. 2152.02(F)(2); therefore, both Juv.R. 29, setting forth the procedure for adjudicatory hearings, and Juv.R. 35(B), setting forth the procedure for the revocation of probation, are applicable to the hearing.” {¶23} The Court went on to state: