State v. Woods
| Decision Date | 18 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 14317,14317 |
| Citation | 98 Ohio App.3d 606,649 N.E.2d 48 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WOODS, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Carley J. Ingram, Montgomery County Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Risa McCray, Dayton, for appellant.
Defendant-appellant Dutch Nicole Woods appeals from the revocation of his probation. The probation resulted from his conviction for the offense of carrying a concealed weapon. The revocation of that probation resulted from his pleas of guilty to two counts of drug abuse and one count of carrying a concealed weapon.
Woods contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation without a hearing. We conclude that Woods received the only hearing to which he was entitled under the circumstances, which was a hearing at which he was permitted to bring any matters to the attention of the court that might affect its discretion with respect to the revocation of probation. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Woods was convicted in 1992 for carrying a concealed weapon. He was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, but was placed on probation for a period not to exceed five years.
In 1993, Woods pled guilty to drug abuse. While sentencing for that conviction was pending, he was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon, having weapons while under a disability, and drug abuse.
Woods received notice of a probation revocation hearing, but this was continued until the date of his plea of guilty to carrying a concealed weapon and drug abuse. The third count, having weapons while under a disability, was dismissed by the state as part of a plea bargain.
The trial court reminded Woods that he was on probation when it accepted his plea, and advised Woods that his guilty plea might result in the revocation of his probation.
On November 9, 1993, Woods appeared before the trial court for disposition of the two drug abuse convictions and the new conviction of carrying a concealed weapon, as well as the state's request to revoke his probation on the earlier conviction of carrying a concealed weapon. Those entire proceedings are as follows:
From the termination entry reflecting the above-quoted disposition, Woods appeals.
Woods's sole assignment of error is as follows:
"The trial court violated the minimum requirements of due process when it failed to hold either of the two hearings mandated by due process regarding probation-revocation."
Woods relies upon Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484, a case involving the revocation of parole, which was followed in Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973), 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656, a case involving the revocation of probation. We have reviewed those decisions, and the Gagnon decision appears to add nothing material to the issues in this case beyond confirming that the principles espoused in Morrissey apply in probation revocation proceedings.
In Morrissey, the United States Supreme Court found that although the revocation of parole does not require the due process equivalent of a criminal prosecution, there are some requirements that apply. The court divided the inquiry in a parole revocation proceeding into two distinct parts. The first inquiry is the determination of whether the terms of parole have been violated. This is a retrospective issue of fact, and would appear to be analogous to the determination of whether a defendant in a criminal prosecution is, in fact, guilty of the offense charged.
The second inquiry is necessary only if a parole violation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doner v. Snapp
... ... The appellants lodged this appeal on June 2, 1994 ... For their lone assignment of error, the appellants state: ... "The judgment in favor of the appellee[s] is against the manifest weight of the evidence because the common pleas court erred in ... ...
-
State v. James David Beam
...is that the summary order revoking his probation was a denial of due process because it failed to make the second inquiry required by Woods, whether revocation of probation is appropriate. According Beam, the court should have held a separate hearing in which the evidence against him was pr......
-
State v. Eversole, 22680.
...(1) whether the terms of probation have been violated, and (2) whether revocation of probation is appropriate." State v. Woods (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 606, 649 N.E.2d 48, as cited in State v. Beam (Mar. 29, 1996), Darke App. No. 1380, 1996 WL 144194, *4. "The second stage of the inquiry, wha......
-
State v. Ralph W. Alexander
... ... initiate further proceedings, and a final hearing was ... conducted. State v. Bleasdale (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d ... 68, 70, 590 N.E.2d 43. A preliminary hearing is unnecessary ... when a probationer pleads guilty to a crime. State v ... Woods (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 606, 609, 649 N.E.2d 48 ... The ... above two cases are inapplicable to the case at bar. In the ... current case, appellant never received notice that he was ... charged with a probation violation until after he was found ... not ... ...