State v. Nallen, 2013 Ohio 3284

Defendant Matthew Nallen pled no-contest to attempted failure to comply (4th‑degree) and theft (5th‑degree) and was placed on two years’ community control with multiple standard and special conditions (e.g., obey laws, drug testing, mental‑health/substance‑abuse treatment, no weapons, pay costs/restitution, obtain employment, notice of warrantless searches).
A community‑control violation notice alleged multiple breaches (stopping payment on a vehicle check, failing to report, leaving state without permission, unpaid costs/restitution, failure to obtain employment, failure to participate in MCRC counseling, and a positive drug screen).
At the revocation hearing Nallen admitted failing to pay court costs and restitution and failing to obtain/maintain employment; the State withdrew other allegations. The court heard additional testimony about unapproved out‑of‑state travel and lack of mental‑health counseling.
The court inspected text messages on Nallen’s cell phone (produced by probation) that discussed acquiring an automatic weapon; defense did not object or request a continuance and offered limited explanation.
The trial court revoked community control and imposed a concurrent 12‑month aggregate prison term (with mandatory postrelease control), finding Nallen not amenable to community control based on admitted violations plus other conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court’s use of cell‑phone text messages at the revocation hearing violated due process or was the product of an unconstitutional search	State: cell‑phone messages were not relied on to prove the admitted violations and were properly considered by the court in assessing amenability	Nallen: phone records were allegedly illicitly obtained without foundation; their surprise use deprived him of opportunity to prepare and violated due process	Court: no plain error — defendant admitted violations forming sufficient basis for revocation; cell‑phone evidence was not introduced by State, defense did not object, and defendant had an opportunity to respond
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking community control and imposing prison for failure to pay costs/restitution and maintain employment	State: revocation appropriate given admissions plus other compliance failures and safety concerns	Nallen: lack of proof he had ability to pay; health problems and felony status impeded employment; insufficient mitigation presented	Court: no abuse of discretion — defendant admitted violations, presented no medical/counseling evidence or continuance request, and other unaddressed violations supported revocation

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due‑process guarantees applicable at probation/community‑control revocation proceedings)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (procedural‑due‑process components required at revocation hearings)
State v. Moreland, 50 Ohio St.3d 58 (Ohio 1990) (plain‑error standard requires outcome would clearly have been different)
State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1990) (Crim.R. 52(B) plain‑error caution and limits)
State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain‑error standard explained)