[Cite as State v. Zeger, 2022-Ohio-1202.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

CRAWFORD COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

CASE NO. 3-21-14

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

 v,

CODY JACOB ZEGER, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court

Trial Court No. 21-CR-0114

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: April 11, 2022

APPEARANCES:

Howard A. Elliott for Appellant

Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee
Case No. 3-21-14

-2-

WILLAMOWSKI, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Cody Zeger (“Zeger”) brings this appeal from the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County revoking Zeger’s 

community control and sentencing him to eight months in prison. On appeal, Zeger 

claims that the trial court erred in revoking his community control and in failing to 

explain the rights Zeger was waiving by admitting to the violations. For the reasons 

set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.

{¶2} On May 10, 2021, Zeger entered a plea of guilty to one count of 

domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A),(D)(3), a felony of the fourth 

degree. Doc. 14. The trial court sentenced Zeger to five years of community control 

and advised Zeger that if he failed to successfully complete community control, he 

was subject to a prison sentence of 18 months. Doc. 15. 

{¶3} On August 4, 2021, Chris Heydinger (“Heydinger”), a Crawford 

County Probation Officer, filed a “motion” to revoke Zeger’s community control. 

Doc. 17. The “motion” alleged that Zeger tested positive for amphetamines, 

marijuana, and methamphetamines on May 11 and August 3, 2021, and that Zeger 

admitted to his drug usage. Doc. 17. Zeger also tested positive for consumption of 

alcohol on those same dates and admitted to the consumption. Doc. 17. Heydinger 

alleged that the usage of drugs and alcohol violated rules 7 and 13 of Zeger’s 

community control sanctions. Doc. 17. A hearing was held on September 8, 2021, 

at which Zeger admitted the violations and the trial court found him to have violated 
Case No. 3-21-14

-3-

the terms of his community control. Doc. 21. The trial court then revoked Zeger’s 

community control and sentenced him to eight months in prison with 40 days of jail 

time credit granted. Doc. 21. Zeger appealed from this judgment. Doc. 23. On 

appeal, Zeger raises the following assignments of error.

First Assignment of Error

The trial court acts improperly when [it] uses an unconfirmed 

positive drug screen to [sic] as a basis of finding of a community 

control violation, and in doing so it must be reversed.

Second Assignment of Error

The trial court’s finding of a criminal community control 

violation based upon the sole testimony of the supervising officer 

and an unconfirmed positive drug screen is not supported by the 

sufficiency of the evidence and must be set [sic] vacated.

Third Assignment of Error

Where the trial court fails to adequately explain to the defendant 

the rights being surrendered by waiving a full hearing on an 

alleged community control violation and relies upon hearsay to 

establish the violation[,] a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary 

waiver of the right to hearing has not taken place and the Court 

finding of a community control violation must be set aside.

In the interest of clarity, we will address the third assignment of error first.

{¶4} In the third assignment of error, Zeger appears to be arguing that his 

waiver of a hearing was not voluntary. Zeger bases his argument on the holding of 

the fourth district in the case of In re Z.M.W. 4

th Dist. Athens No. 11CA24, 2012-

Ohio-1785. However, this case is not applicable because it was a juvenile matter 

and the appellate court reversed on the grounds that the trial court failed to comply 
Case No. 3-21-14

-4-

with Juvenile Rule 29(D). The matter before us is not a juvenile matter and thus the 

juvenile rules are inapplicable.

{¶5} Before revoking community control, a trial court is required to hold “a 

hearing at which the defendant shall be present and apprised of the grounds on which 

action is proposed.” Crim.R. 32.3(A). This Court has previously indicated that a 

defendant is entitled to both a preliminary and a final revocation hearing. State v. 

Knerr, 3d Dist. Auglaize Nos. 2-14-03 and 2-14-04, 2014-Ohio-3988, ¶ 14. 

Although a revocation hearing must comply with due process requirements, it is not 

a criminal proceeding. State v. Grow, 3d Dist. Logan Nos. 8-20-27, 8-20-28, and 

8-20-29, 2021-Ohio-641, ¶ 8. The due process requirements for a revocation 

hearing are 1) written notice of the claimed violations, 2) disclosure of evidence 

against him, 3) an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, 4) the right to 

confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, 5) a neutral and detached hearing 

body, and 6) a written statement by the fact finders setting forth the evidence relied 

on and the reasons for the revocation. Id. Additionally, a defendant in a community 

control violation hearing is not entitled to all of the same rights as a defendant in a 

criminal prosecution and the requirements of Criminal Rule 11(C)(2) do not apply. 

Id. at ¶ 10. Instead, the requirements for a community control revocation hearing 

are set by Criminal Rule 32.3. Id. at ¶ 11. This rule requires in pertinent part 1) that 

the court hold a hearing at which the defendant was present and was informed of the 

grounds for the alleged violations and 2) that the defendant has the right to counsel. 
Case No. 3-21-14

-5-

Crim.R. 32.3(A),(B). When reviewing a record to determine if the due process 

requirements were met for a community control revocation hearing, “the relevant 

consideration is not whether the record proves that [a defendant] understood the 

rights he [is] waiving; it is whether the record in some way indicates that he did not 

understand the rights he [is] waiving.” Grow, supra at ¶ 12. 

{¶6} In this case, Zeger was given written notice specifying the basis for the 

“motion” to revoke his community control and disclosed the evidence against him 

via the “motion” to revoke his community control. An initial hearing was conducted 

on August 4, 2021, at which the trial court found there was probable cause to 

proceed to a final-revocation hearing. Doc. 19. Zeger was represented by counsel 

at this hearing and a denial was entered on his behalf. Doc. 19. The final hearing 

was held on September 8, 2021, at which Heydinger recited the evidence against 

Zeger. Tr. 3-4. Zeger was present and represented by counsel at this hearing. The

trial court advised Zeger as to the potential sentence if the community control was 

revoked. Tr. 5. The trial court then personally addressed Zeger and asked if he 

admitted to the allegations and if he admitted to violating the terms of his 

community control. Tr. 5. Both times, Zeger responded that he wished to make the 

admissions. Tr. 5. Additionally, Zeger was provided with a written statement of 

the alleged violations and disclosure of the evidence against him prior to the trial, 

was given the opportunity to be heard and present witnesses, the right to question 

the statements by Heydinger, the trial judge appeared neutral at the hearing (even 
Case No. 3-21-14

-6-

imposing a sentence lower than that requested by the State), and the trial court’s 

judgment entry set forth the basis for his finding that a violation occurred (the 

admission by Zeger). Since all of the due process requirements were satisfied, the 

third assignment of error is overruled.

{¶7} Zeger’s first assignment of error challenges the testimony of Heydinger 

that Zeger failed two drug screens because there was no evidence of reliability of 

the test. This assignment of error ignores the fact that the reliability of the test was 

established when Zeger admitted that he had violated terms of his community 

control. When speaking to the trial court, Zeger admitted the offenses in detail. Tr. 

9-12. At no time did Zeger dispute the fact that he had violated the terms of his 

community control. Although Zeger disputed that he had intentionally used 

methamphetamines, he admitted to voluntarily using marijuana on at least two 

occasions. The second instance happened even after he knew that he had previously 

tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamines. Given the admissions, the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Zeger had violated the terms of 

his community control. The first assignment of error is overruled.

{¶8} In the second assignment of error, Zeger claims that the trial court’s 

determination that he had violated his community control sanctions was not 

supported by sufficient evidence. When reviewing whether the evidence was 

sufficient, the question is whether, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to 

the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the elements proven beyond 
Case No. 3-21-14

-7-

a reasonable doubt. State v. Hulbert, 3d Dist. Van Wert No. 15-19-07, 2021-Ohio2298, ¶ 5. The State need only show in a community control revocation hearing 

that there was “substantial” evidence that the offender violated the terms of the 

community control sanctions. State v. Sandlin, 3d Dist. Crawford Nos. 3-21-10, 3-

21-11, 2022-Ohio-570, ¶ 16. “Substantial evidence” consists of “more than a mere 

scintilla [of] evidence, but somewhat less than a preponderance.” Id. quoting State 

v. Herald, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-16-09, 2016-Ohio-7733, ¶ 27. The essential 

element of whether one violated a term of community control would be to determine 

whether a defendant’s actions were prohibited by the community control sanctions. 

Here, Zeger admitted that he violated the terms of the community control sanctions. 

Even if he had not admitted it, the evidence showed that on two separate occasions, 

Zeger failed drug screens and had alcohol in his system, despite both substances 

being prohibited by the terms of his community control. Thus, the evidence was 

sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Zeger violated the terms of his 

community control. The second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶9} Having found no error prejudicial to appellant in the particulars 

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford 

County is affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed

ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.

/hls