Toledo v. NovaToledo v. Nova
* * * * *
Jerome Phillips, for appellant.
* * * * *
YARBROUGH, J.
I. Introduction
{¶1} Appellant, Aaron Nova, appeals from the judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court, which revoked his probation and enforced a suspended six-month jail sentence. We reverse.
{¶2} On March 13, 2012, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of domestic violence, a misdemeanor of the first degree. The trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to six months in jail. The court then suspended the jail sentence and placed appellant on probation. One of the terms of probation was that appellant was to “Obey all city, state, and federal laws. Contact your Officer immediately if ticketed or arrested or placed on supervision (probation) with any other Court.”
{¶3} On August 7, 2012, appellant was charged with misdemeanor cruelty to animals. On August 14, 2012, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Later that day, the trial court held a preliminary hearing on an allegation of probation violation based on the animal cruelty charge.1 At that hearing, appellant, with counsel, admitted that he had been charged with cruelty to animals. Appellant then requested a hearing on whether he violated the terms of his probation. The trial court, however, understood the law to be that merely being charged with a crime is sufficient to violate probation. The court then found appellant in violation of his probation, and ordered that the suspended six-month sentence be enforced.
{¶4} Appellant has timely appealed, raising a single assignment of error:
- The trial court violated Appellant‘s right to Due Process when it found Appellant in violation of his probation without sufficient evidence.
II. Analysis
{¶5} We review a trial court‘s revocation of probation for an abuse of discretion. State v. Ohly, 166 Ohio App.3d 808, 2006-Ohio-2353, 853 N.E.2d 675, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.). An abuse of discretion connotes that the trial court‘s attitude was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶6} “To support a finding for revocation of probation, the allegations need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but, rather, must be based only upon ‘evidence of a substantial nature showing that revocation is justified.‘” Ohly at ¶ 18, quoting State v. Bland, 6th Dist. No. H-96-031, 1997 WL 77679 (Feb. 21, 1997). “Substantial evidence is akin to a preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof.” Id.
{¶7} Numerous Ohio courts have agreed with the proposition that merely being charged with a crime is not sufficient to show a violation of probation. See, e.g., State v. Wagner, 179 Ohio App.3d 165, 2008-Ohio-5765, 900 N.E.2d 1089, ¶ 42 (2d Dist.) (“[T]he fact that a criminal charge was filed, by itself, is not sufficient to prove, even by a preponderance of the evidence, that Wagner committed the criminal act.“); State v. Craig, 130 Ohio App.3d 639, 642, 720 N.E.2d 966 (1st Dist.1998) (“[T]he mere fact of an arrest
{¶8} Accordingly, appellant‘s assignment of error is well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶9} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for a hearing on whether appellant violated the terms of his probation. The state is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment reversed.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. JUDGE
CONCUR. ____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.