State v. Motz, 158 N.E.3d 641

In Feb 2018 Kyle Motz pled guilty to fourth-degree felony gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to five years of community control as a Tier II sex offender with conditions including inpatient sex-offender treatment and no contact with the victim or a bike trail.
Dec 2018: probation officer Pierce alleged Motz possessed large amounts of pornography; Motz pleaded guilty to that community-control violation and received additional sanctions (electronic curfew, community service, no smartphone, therapy requirements).
July 2019: Pierce reported Motz was unsuccessfully terminated from his required sex-offender group for attendance, tardiness, evasive behavior, and disrespect toward staff; Motz denied the violation at a preliminary hearing.
Oct 14, 2019 final revocation hearing: testimony from supervisory officer Amy Bidinger (who relied on reports), treatment provider Gary Key (who directly supervised and terminated Motz), and Motz (who claimed excused absences and financial motives for seeking another provider).
Trial court found Motz violated treatment rules, revoked community control, and imposed an 18-month prison term (the maximum warned at original sentencing).
Motz appealed raising three assignments: (1) due-process/confrontation violation for not calling probation officer Pierce; (2) insufficiency/abuse of discretion in finding a violation; (3) sentencing error for failing to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to confront adverse witnesses at revocation hearing	Motz: due process violated because Pierce (the reporting PO) did not testify; Bidinger lacked personal knowledge and gave hearsay	State: Bidinger had supervisory knowledge; Key (the treatment provider with first-hand knowledge) testified and Motz could confront him; any hearsay harmless	Court: Distinguished State v. Miller; no due-process violation because Key testified with first-hand knowledge and Motz had opportunity to confront him; Bidinger had supervisory knowledge; any hearsay was harmless
Sufficiency / abuse of discretion to revoke community control	Motz: evidence insufficient — Bidinger had no personal knowledge and Key was biased	State: substantial evidence (missed/tardy sessions, evasive behavior, unsuccessful discharge) supports revocation	Court: No abuse of discretion; substantial evidence supported finding Motz was unsuccessfully discharged for attendance and engagement failures
Legality/adequacy of 18-month prison sentence	Motz: trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.12 and make necessary findings; sentence unsupported	State: trial court considered relevant factors; sentence within statutory range and within warning at original sentence	Court: R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are relevant to revocation sentencing; record shows court considered seriousness and recidivism factors; 18 months is within statutory range and supported by record

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due-process minimums for parole revocation proceedings)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (applies Morrissey procedural protections to probation revocations)
State v. Miller, 42 Ohio St.2d 102 (Ohio Supreme Court: confrontation requirement where probation officer who prepared records does not testify)
State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (trial court discretion to impose prison for community-control violation and consideration of seriousness of original offense and violation)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Heinz, 146 Ohio St.3d 374 (recognizes relevance of R.C. 2929.11 considerations when sentencing on community-control violation)