State v. Parker
2011 Ohio 595
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Deborah Parker was convicted by jury of theft from an elderly or disabled person (R.C. 2913.02(A)(2)).
- She was sentenced to three years of community control with Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP), including a mental health track.
- Probation was revoked at least once in 2009 when Parker refused to sign the terms and failed to report.
- In early 2010, motions to revoke or modify her probation were filed based on noncompliance with medications, counseling, and monitoring; she did not attend a March 2010 revocation hearing, resulting in a capias until a later date is set.
- At the May 10, 2010 revocation hearing, the State presented probation officer testimony; Parker presented testimony via her aunt; the court found violations and sentenced Parker to nine months in prison.
- Parker filed a timely appeal asserting due process violations and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process was satisfied in the revocation hearing | Parker argues she was not properly identified and lacked procedural protections. | The State contends due process requirements were met and evidentiary rules do not apply at revocation hearings. | Due process satisfied; substantial evidence supported revocation. |
| Whether Parker received effective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to have Parker testify and failed to object to lack of identification. | Counsel's performance was reasonable under the circumstances; no prejudice shown. | No ineffective assistance; no reasonable probability the outcome would differ. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (Supreme Court, 1973) (due-process requirements for revocation hearings)
- State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134, 814 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004) (notification of potential prison term at sentencing; ceiling on term)
- State v. Hylton, 75 Ohio App.3d 778, 600 N.E.2d 821 (Ohio App. 1991) (substantial evidence standard for probation revocation)
- State v. Henderson, 62 Ohio App.3d 848 (Ohio App. 1989) (reliance on substantial evidence; waiver of errors by failure to object)