State v. Clark
2012 Ohio 5570
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Clark pleaded guilty to burglary, a second-degree felony, on August 5, 2010.
- He was sentenced on September 30, 2010 to two years of community control with APA reporting.
- In July 2011 the State moved to revoke his community control for alleged law violations, including an aggravated robbery.
- A probable-cause hearing was held; the court found probable cause and held Clark without bond pending the violation hearing.
- At the December 14, 2011 violation hearing, the victim testified about the robbery and Clark’s involvement; Detective Kosco testified about vehicle and monitor evidence.
- The trial court revoked Clark’s community control and sentenced him to four years in prison; Clark appealed via Anders brief and pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probation violation proof sufficiency | State: evidence substantial to show violation of law condition. | Clark: lack of credible evidence linking him to crime; no fingerprints. | No merit; evidence sufficient to support revocation. |
| Adequacy of R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) notification at initial sentencing | State: proper notification could affect revocation; original sentence not appealed. | Clark: lack of explicit notification of potential prison term for violations. | Without merit; issue barred by res judicata due to no direct appeal. |
| Adequacy of evidence-notification at violation hearing | State: oral findings on record satisfy due process. | Clark: no written statement of relied-upon evidence. | Oral statements sufficient; due process satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-4746, 614 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio 2004) (required statutorily detailed notifications at sentencing for community control)
- State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473 (Ohio 2003) (notification prerequisites for prison terms under 2929.19(B)(5))
- State v. Tribble, 7th Dist. No. 07 MA 205, 2009-Ohio-1311 (Ohio 2009) (waiver when error not raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Delaney, 11 Ohio St.3d 231, 465 N.E.2d 72 (Ohio 1984) (due process in revocation based on conduct surrounding violation)
- State v. Kincer, 12th Dist. No. CA2005-07-059, 2006-Ohio-2249 (Ohio 2006) (probation revocation standard and credibility considerations)