State v. Burdette, 2011 Ohio 4425

Defendant-appellant Robert Burdette entered an order of Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (ILC) after pleading to Possession of Drugs, a fifth-degree felony, under an October 2008 plea agreement.
As part of the ILC, Burdette was to complete CBCF, Ashland County drug court, follow-up treatment, enter a maintenance program for at least one year, and perform up to 500 hours of community service.
Starting April 2009, Burdette fully engaged with CBCF and began reporting to probation, including submission to random drug testing.
On November 2, 2009, a redi-strip test indicated benzodiazepines (Xanax); Burdette admitted taking an unprescribed Xanax; a confirmatory lab test followed.
The State sought to terminate the ILC; at a February 4, 2010 hearing the court found Burdette violated the ILC, leading to a March 30, 2010 sentencing where Burdette was sentenced to 11 months (concurrent) but placed on three years of community control sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court have jurisdiction to revoke the ILC?	Burdette argues no continuing jurisdiction after violation.	Burdette contends jurisdiction terminated upon violation.	Jurisdiction existed; ILC remains under supervision and can be revoked.
Was Burdette deprived of due process in the ILC revocation?	Due process protections were violated by revocation proceedings.	Due process satisfied; proper notice and opportunity to be heard were provided.	No due process violation; substantial proof supported revocation.
Was there abuse of discretion in revoking the ILC?	Court abused its discretion in revoking ILC.	Court acted within discretion based on evidence of violation.	No abuse of discretion; decision supported by substantial evidence.
Was the revocation of ILC against the weight/evidence standard?	Weight of evidence favored Burdette; insufficient basis for revocation.	Evidence, including admission of unprescribed drug use, supports revocation.	Not contrary to the weight of the evidence; substantial evidence supported revocation.
Did the State violate discovery or access to lab results affecting Burdette's rights?	Laboratory results favorable to Burdette were improperly undisclosed.	No Constitutional violation; results were disclosed timely and properly.	No due process or discovery violation; timing of disclosure did not prejudice Burdette.

State v. Pavlich, 2011-Ohio-802 (6th Dist. 2011) (probation revocation due process requires notice, opportunity to be heard, and written findings)
State v. McKeithen, 2009-Ohio-84 (3rd Dist. 2009) (due process in revocation proceedings; Morrissey/Morrissey lineage)
State v. Ryan, 2007-Ohio-4743 (3rd Dist. 2007) (substantial evidence standard for probation/community-control violations)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (probation revocation due process basics)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (due process requirements for probation/parole revocation)