State v. Fountain, 2023 Ohio 3111

In 19CR0167 Fountain pled guilty (Oct. 2019) to counterfeiting; court imposed two years of community control with restitution, supervision fee, and court costs. No direct appeal.
In 20CR0023 Fountain pled guilty (Apr. 2020) to tampering with evidence; court imposed three years of community control with supervision fee and court costs. No direct appeal.
April 2020: after a probable-cause and final revocation proceeding in 19CR0167, the court found Fountain violated community control and imposed an additional year of community control, ordered PIVOT drug-program participation, 90 days jail, restitution, and court costs.
March 22, 2022: the State moved in both cases to extend Fountain’s community control to allow completion of PIVOT and payment of financial obligations; the trial court granted the extensions the same day without a hearing or serving Fountain with the motions.
Fountain appealed, arguing she was denied notice and the minimum due-process protections before the court extended her supervision and that there was insufficient evidence to justify the extension.
The Third District reversed and remanded, holding the summary extensions violated Fountain’s due-process rights and the trial court abused its discretion by extending community control without a hearing or a waiver of rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by extending community control without a hearing or prior notice?	The court had discretion to extend because costs were unpaid and the extensions were rational; a hearing would waste resources.	Fountain was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard; she did not waive protections.	Reversed: summary extension without notice/hearing violated minimum due process; abuse of discretion; remand for proceedings.
Can nonpayment of court costs alone justify extending community control without the revocation process?	Unpaid costs provide a rational basis under R.C. to extend supervision.	Failure to pay costs cannot, by itself, support revocation/extension absent consideration of capacity to pay and a hearing; Fountain was not ordered to pay fines.	Trial court may extend if a rational basis exists, but extension must be supported by substantial evidence at a hearing; here procedural due-process defects required reversal.

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (establishes due-process protections for revocation proceedings).
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard).
State v. Miller, 42 Ohio St.2d 102 (1975) (requires minimum due process in probation revocation context).
State v. Scott, 6 Ohio App.3d 39 (1982) (court should assess payments, ability to pay, and good-faith efforts before extending probation for unpaid restitution).
State v. Criss, 55 Ohio App.3d 238 (1988) (contrasting decision that allowed summary extension of probation).
State v. Simpson, 2 Ohio App.3d 40 (1981) (extension without notice offends fundamental fair play).
State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808 (2006) (defines substantial-evidence standard for probation-revocation findings).