State v. White, 2022 Ohio 665

In July 2019 White pled guilty to misdemeanor theft; court imposed 180 days, credited 4 days, and suspended 176 days on 2 years probation with specific "stay away" terms (Walmart/Target).
Probation conditions required compliance with law and reporting any arrests/contacts to probation officer; White signed that he received and understood them.
Between November 2019 and January–March 2020, multiple new charges were filed in different jurisdictions; probation office filed successive Statements/Addenda alleging violations.
A public defender was appointed for the revocation proceedings, but at the June 28, 2021 revocation hearing White appeared without counsel; the court discussed a separate case where White asked to discharge counsel and then addressed the revocation in the instant case without conducting a Crim.R. 44 waiver colloquy.
The court orally revoked probation and imposed the remaining 133 days; the written revocation form left the representation field blank. The State concedes error on appeal. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new revocation hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether White was denied the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel at the probation revocation hearing	Revocation was proper because court addressed violations and White did not explicitly request counsel at the revocation stage	White was not advised of or shown to have validly waived his right to counsel; no on-the-record Crim.R. 44 waiver occurred	Reversed: trial court failed to advise White of right to counsel or obtain a recorded waiver; revocation vacated and remanded for new hearing
Whether the trial court afforded White required due-process/procedural revocation hearings under Crim.R. 32.3	Court complied with hearing requirements	Court failed to follow required procedures (counsel waiver/colloquy), denying due process	Moot (appellate court did not decide after resolving counsel issue)

Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) (right to counsel applies when imprisonment may be imposed for a misdemeanor)
Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002) (suspended sentence that may be revoked to imprisonment triggers right to counsel)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant has constitutional right to self-representation if waiver is knowing and voluntary)
State v. Wellman, 37 Ohio St.2d 162 (1974) (waiver of counsel cannot be inferred from silence; waiver must affirmatively appear in the record)
State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 (2004) (discusses right to counsel and standards for waiver)