Treshia Vernetta Dave v. State, 365 Ga. App. 1

On November 6, 2019 Dave pled guilty and was admitted to a superior-court mental health court program; no judgment of conviction or sentence was entered at that time.
Her mental-health-court contract stated that termination for noncompliance would bar withdrawal of the plea and lead to a five-year sentence (two years to be served in confinement).
On February 18, 2021 the case manager filed a "Notice of Team Decision to Seek Termination," stating it was mailed to Dave at her last known address; the filing did not show service on plea counsel.
The termination hearing was held February 25, 2021; neither Dave nor her plea counsel attended, and the mailed notice was returned as undeliverable.
On March 1 the court entered an order terminating Dave from the program, and on March 5 the court entered judgment and imposed the five-year sentence.
Dave appealed, arguing (among other claims) that the termination hearing violated due process because neither she nor her counsel received proper notice; the Court of Appeals reversed on that due-process ground.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dave)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether terminating Dave without counsel being served violated due process	Dave: hearing notice was insufficient because her counsel was not served	State: mailing to Dave's last known address was sufficient	Held: Due process violated; rules require service on counsel where counsel remains of record, and counsel was not served
Whether plea counsel remained counsel of record at the time of the termination hearing	Dave: counsel remained until court permitted withdrawal or substitution	State: counsel's representation ended when case was referred to mental health court after the plea	Held: Counsel remained of record; no order permitting withdrawal and substitution occurred only after the hearing
Whether Dave waived notice by "absconding" or noncompliance	Dave: she did not knowingly waive right to notice or opportunity to be heard	State: her absconding and noncompliance justify treating notice as ineffective / waiver	Held: No knowing waiver shown; waiver of notice must be knowing and voluntary
Whether the due-process violation was harmless error	Dave: error was not harmless; she lost chance to explain/mitigate and court may have declined termination in different circumstances	State: error harmless (implicit)	Held: Not harmless; reversal of termination order, judgment, and sentence required

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (probation revocation entails due-process rights to notice and hearing)
Meadows v. Settles, 274 Ga. 858 (2002) (due-process analysis for revocation-style proceedings and fundamental fairness)
Johnson v. Boyington, 273 Ga. 420 (2001) (right to notice and opportunity to be heard in probation revocation context)
Ponder v. State, 341 Ga. App. 276 (2017) (sufficient notice must include time and place of hearing)
White v. State, 302 Ga. 315 (2017) (rule on continuity of legal representation through sentencing on a guilty plea)
Dos Santos v. State, 307 Ga. 151 (2019) (counsel remains of record absent court order allowing withdrawal)
Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357 (2014) (similar principle on counsel of record status)
Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. 437 (2016) (sentencing is a distinct phase of criminal proceedings and related procedural protections)