State v. Harris
2017 Ohio 7914
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Andre L. Harris pleaded guilty to one count of domestic violence in Nov. 2014 and was placed on two years of community control; the sentencing entry warned that violation could result in up to a 2‑year prison term.
- Harris was ordered to enter residential treatment (SHARP), undergo assessments/counseling, submit to random drug screens, and comply with probation reporting and other program requirements.
- Harris absconded (AWOL) from the SHARP facility and failed to report to his probation officer; a capias issued and he eventually faced a violation hearing in Aug. 2016.
- At the Aug. 2016 hearing Harris initially considered pleading guilty but chose a contested hearing; the probation officer testified about Harris leaving SHARP and not reporting, and Harris admitted he left and failed to report.
- The trial court found Harris violated community control and sentenced him to two years in prison; Harris appealed, raising (1) improper notice/hearsay/insufficient evidence and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Harris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris received constitutionally adequate notice of alleged violations | Notice was served (probation officer testified) and Harris and counsel were aware of allegations at the hearing | Harris contends he lacked notice and thus due process was violated | No plain error shown; record supports notice and Harris forfeited detailed challenge by not objecting below |
| Whether hearsay/probation officer testimony was insufficient to prove violation | Rules of evidence don’t apply to community control hearings; officer’s testimony and Harris’s admissions supplied sufficient proof | Officer’s testimony contained hearsay and was therefore insufficient | Held sufficient; no objection at hearing and Harris admitted violations; Evid.R. 101(C)(3) applies |
| Whether trial court could impose prison without re‑notifying Harris of the specific prison term at each subsequent hearing | State: prior notification in original sentencing/entries was sufficient to authorize incarceration | Harris: trial court had to notify him at each violation hearing per Brooks/Fraley to impose prison | Court held repeat re‑notification not required; prior notice was legally sufficient to permit prison term |
| Whether counsel was ineffective in handling the violation hearing | State: counsel’s conduct was reasonable (strategic admissions, no prejudicial omissions) | Harris alleges counsel admitted guilt, failed to object to hearsay, and failed to argue notice requirement | Court found performance not deficient or no prejudice shown; ineffective‑assistance claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (trial court must notify offender of specific prison term that may be imposed for violation)
- State v. Fraley, 105 Ohio St.3d 13 (timing of required notification for imposing prison after repeated violations)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (due‑process minimum requirements for probation/parole revocation hearings)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (procedural due‑process standards for parole revocation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Reynolds, 80 Ohio St.3d 670 (applying Strickland in Ohio criminal context)