State v. Wright
2013 Ohio 2733
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2007 Wright pled guilty to second-degree felonious assault and was placed on three years community control; that was later revoked in 2009 and he was sentenced to four years in prison.
- In November 2009 Wright was granted judicial release and placed on intensive probation for three years under conditions that included obeying court orders and reporting to probation.
- In April 2010 a probation officer moved to revoke based on missed obligations and positive cocaine tests; an evidentiary hearing was scheduled for May 10, 2010 after Wright stipulated to probable cause on May 3, 2010.
- Wright failed to appear May 10, 2010, a capias issued, and he absconded until his arrest on November 27, 2012.
- At the December 17, 2012 revocation hearing the probation officer who had taken over the file (Shelley Wolf) testified (some hearsay); the trial court found Wright failed to appear and did not contact probation, revoked judicial release, and ordered Wright to serve the remainder of the four-year sentence.
- On appeal Wright argued the revocation rested on hearsay and insufficient evidence and that his due-process right to confront witnesses was violated; the Fifth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation was supported by sufficient evidence | State: court docket and capias show failure to appear and absconding for >2 years, providing competent evidence | Wright: hearing relied solely on hearsay from a probation officer who lacked direct knowledge | Court: Affirmed—revocation supported by independent, competent evidence (capias and docket); not based solely on hearsay |
| Whether Wright was denied due process / confrontation rights | State: revocation hearings are not governed by criminal confrontation rules and hearsay is admissible unless sole crucial evidence | Wright: introduction of hearsay and inability to cross-examine original officer violated due process | Court: Affirmed—Crawford-type confrontation right does not apply to community-control revocation; admission of hearsay not reversible where not the sole crucial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978) (standard that findings are supported by some competent, credible evidence)
- State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808, 853 N.E.2d 675 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (hearsay at probation revocation reversible only when sole, crucial evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (limitation on confrontation clause application; court concluded it does not apply to community-control revocations)
- State v. Hylton, 75 Ohio App.3d 778, 600 N.E.2d 821 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (prosecution need only present substantial proof of community-control violation; not beyond a reasonable doubt)