43 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2026 12 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bellgreen2 sentences2026He argues that his revocations were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶ 19} “‘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.’” State v. Russell, 2009-Ohio-3147 , ¶ 7 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 (5th Dist.1990). 2026State v. Graham, 2022-Ohio-1770, ¶ 39 (5th Dist.); Jones, ¶ 19; State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 (5th Dist. 1990) (“Probation rests upon the probationer's compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege.”) {¶15} Once a court finds a violation of the terms of community control, an appellate court reviews the trial court's decision to revoke a defendant's community control for an abuse of discretion. | 8 | 42 |
Marker v. Finchgreen2 sentences2024Feb. 18, 1994), citing Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 , (4th Cir. 1966), and Marker v. Finch 322 F.Supp. 905, 910, fn 7 . (1971). {¶25} “‘The privilege of probation rests upon the probationer’s compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege.’” Id. at ¶ 19, quoting State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 (5th Dist. 1990). 2011No. 93-L-080, citing Laws v. Celebrezze (4th Cir., 1966), 368 F.2d 640, 642 , and Marker v. Finch (D.C.Del.1971), 322 F.Supp. 905, 910, fn. 7 . {¶15} “The privilege of probation rests upon the probationer's compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege.” State v. Bell (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 , 583 N.E.2d 414 . | 5 | 5 |
State v. Wolfson, Unpublished Decision (5-25-2004)green2 sentences2024“Because a community control revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, the state does not have to establish a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 . | 1 | 6 |
State v. Grahamgreen1 sentence2026State v. Graham, 2022-Ohio-1770, ¶ 39 (5th Dist.); Jones, ¶ 19; State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 (5th Dist. 1990) (“Probation rests upon the probationer's compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege.”) {¶15} Once a court finds a violation of the terms of community control, an appellate court reviews the trial court's decision to revoke a defendant's community control for an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Willis, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2005)green1 sentence2025“Because a revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, the State is only required to introduce evidence showing it was more probable than not that the person on community control violated its terms or conditions.” Id., citing State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 (5th Dist. 1990), citing State v. Willis, 2005-Ohio-6947, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ohly
green
2 sentences2025DUJUAN RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN ENTERING HIS PLEA.” STANDARD OF REVIEW {¶12} The standard of review in cases involving the revocation of community control was discussed by this Court in State v. Fears, 2018-Ohio-1468 (5th Dist.): “The privilege of probation rests upon the probationer's compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege.” State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808 , 2006-Ohio-2353 , 853 N.E.2d 675 (6th Dist.), ¶ 19, quoting State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 , 583 N.E.2d 414 (5th Dist. 199 2025DUJUAN RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN ENTERING HIS PLEA.” STANDARD OF REVIEW {¶12} The standard of review in cases involving the revocation of community control was discussed by this Court in State v. Fears, 2018-Ohio-1468 (5th Dist.): “The privilege of probation rests upon the probationer's compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege.” State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808 , 2006-Ohio-2353 , 853 N.E.2d 675 (6th Dist.), ¶ 19, quoting State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 , 583 N.E.2d 414 (5th Dist. 199 | 11 | 2007–2025 |
Charles M. Laws v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
green
2 sentences2024Feb. 18, 1994), citing Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 , (4th Cir. 1966), and Marker v. Finch 322 F.Supp. 905, 910, fn 7 . (1971). {¶25} “‘The privilege of probation rests upon the probationer’s compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege.’” Id. at ¶ 19, quoting State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 (5th Dist. 1990). 2011No. 93-L-080, citing Laws v. Celebrezze (4th Cir., 1966), 368 F.2d 640, 642 , and Marker v. Finch (D.C.Del.1971), 322 F.Supp. 905, 910, fn. 7 . {¶15} “The privilege of probation rests upon the probationer's compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege.” State v. Bell (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 , 583 N.E.2d 414 . | 5 | 2006–2024 |
State v. Hylton
green
2 sentences2008"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." Wolfson, Lawrence App. No. 03CA25, 2004-Ohio-2750 , at paragraph 7; see, also, *Page 4 State v. Payne , Warren App. No. CA2001-09-081, 2002-Ohio-1916 ; State v. Hylton (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 778 , 782 , 600 N.E.2d 821 . 2008"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." Wolfson, Lawrence App. No. 03CA25, 2004-Ohio-2750 , at paragraph 7; see, also, *Page 4 State v. Payne , Warren App. No. CA2001-09-081, 2002-Ohio-1916 ; State v. Hylton (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 778 , 782 , 600 N.E.2d 821 . | 5 | 1999–2008 |
State v. Fears
green
2 sentences2025DUJUAN RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN ENTERING HIS PLEA.” STANDARD OF REVIEW {¶12} The standard of review in cases involving the revocation of community control was discussed by this Court in State v. Fears, 2018-Ohio-1468 (5th Dist.): “The privilege of probation rests upon the probationer's compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege.” State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808 , 2006-Ohio-2353 , 853 N.E.2d 675 (6th Dist.), ¶ 19, quoting State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 , 583 N.E.2d 414 (5th Dist. 199 2025DUJUAN RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN ENTERING HIS PLEA.” STANDARD OF REVIEW {¶12} The standard of review in cases involving the revocation of community control was discussed by this Court in State v. Fears, 2018-Ohio-1468 (5th Dist.): “The privilege of probation rests upon the probationer's compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be used to revoke the privilege.” State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808 , 2006-Ohio-2353 , 853 N.E.2d 675 (6th Dist.), ¶ 19, quoting State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 , 583 N.E.2d 414 (5th Dist. 199 | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. McKnight
green
2 sentences2025The trial court was under no obligation to do so. {¶13} It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke community control where the defendant does not comply with its conditions. “‘“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.”’” (Bracketed text in original.) Neubig at ¶ 15 , quoting State v. Russell, 2009-Ohio-3147 , ¶ 6 (11th Dist.), citing McKnight, 10 Ohio App.3d at 313 . 2025“Because a revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, the State is only required to introduce evidence showing it was more probable than not that the person on community control violated its terms or conditions.” Id., citing State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 (5th Dist. 1990), citing State v. Willis, 2005-Ohio-6947, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Swiger
green
1 sentence2024“Determination of the credibility of the witnesses is for the trier of fact.” Id., citing State v. Swiger, 5 Ohio St.2d 151, 156 , (1966). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Blakemore v. Blakemore
green
2 sentences2019Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶8} “The privilege of probation rests upon the probationer’s compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be 3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS used to revoke the privilege.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 , 583 N.E.2d 414 (5th Dist.1990).1 {¶9} Oglesby contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his community control for both offenses because of his failure to pay the court costs, fines imposed, and the fee for the correcti 2019Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶8} “The privilege of probation rests upon the probationer’s compliance with the probation conditions and any violation of those conditions may properly be 3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS used to revoke the privilege.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 , 583 N.E.2d 414 (5th Dist.1990).1 {¶9} Oglesby contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his community control for both offenses because of his failure to pay the court costs, fines imposed, and the fee for the correcti | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Kaimachiande
green
1 sentence2019Logan No. 8-18-57, 2019-Ohio-1939, ¶ 33 . -6- Butler CA2018-10-203 CA2018-10-204 {¶ 20} "'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.'" State v. Russell, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bearden v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2019Beardon v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 , 672- 673, 103 S.Ct. 2064 , 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1993); Dockery at ¶ 14. 2019Beardon v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 , 672- 673, 103 S.Ct. 2064 , 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1993); Dockery at ¶ 14. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Clark
green
1 sentence2019Summit No. 26673, 2013-Ohio-2984, ¶ 5 . {¶12} “‘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.’” (Alteration in original.) State v. Russell, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Patierno, 4-08-08 (2-2-2009)
neutral
1 sentence2014Defiance No. 4-08-08, 2009-Ohio-410, ¶ 24 , quoting State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52, 57 , 583 N.E.2d 414 (5th Dist.1990). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.