State v. Miller, 2011 Ohio 269

Miller has a long history of crimes including forgery, theft, criminal damaging, and disorderly conduct.
On February 3, 2010 Miller was charged with violating her most recent community-control order.
A March 24, 2010 revocation hearing led to a March 25, 2010 journal entry finding violations and imposing a 30-month prison term.
Appellant challenges the revocation as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The trial court relied on testimony from probation personnel and facility records, including hearsay statements, to conclude Miller violated terms of probation.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, denying the sole assignment of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revocation was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Miller argues the decision lacks credible evidence	State contends substantial proof supports violation	Revocation supported by substantial evidence
Whether hearsay used at the revocation hearing was improper	Hearsay relied on by CBCF staff taints the finding	Hearsay is permissible in probation revocation hearings	Hearsay properly admitted under probation exception to evidence rules
Whether the court properly applied the standard of review for probation revocation	Standard misapplied to require beyond reasonable doubt	Standard is substantial evidence under some competent credibility	Court applied correct standard of review
Whether Suboxone possession and program termination constitute probation violations	These facts show noncompliance	Noncompliance established by evidence of termination	Violations supported by evidence examined on appeal

State v. Bell, 66 Ohio App.3d 52 (1990) (probation violations proven by substantial evidence)
State v. Wolfson, 2004-Ohio-2750 (2d Dist.) (probation revocation uses substantial proof standard)
State v. Hylton, 75 Ohio App.3d 778 (1991) (some competent, credible evidence standard for revocation)
State v. Alderson, Meigs App. No. 98CA12 (1999) ( adopts C.E. Morris standard for prob. revocation)
State v. Scott, 6 Ohio App.3d 39 (1982) (abuse of discretion review for revocation decisions)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard governs sanctions in probation context)
Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio App.3d 26 (1991) (probation hearings exempt from most Evidence Rules; hearsay admissible with due process safeguards)
State v. Partin, 2008-Ohio-3904 (5th Dist.) (hearsay error reversible only if sole crucial evidence)