Court Opinion

ID: 9389039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 14:07:20.449259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:24.703518
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Sefton, 2023-Ohio-1318.]

                                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                             BUTLER COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                    :

        Appellee,                                  :         CASE NO. CA2022-08-075

                                                   :                OPINION
     - vs -                                                          4/24/2023
                                                   :

 MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER SEFTON,                       :

        Appellant.                                 :

       CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                          Case No. CR 2021-12-1564

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Willa Concannon, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Engel & Martin, LLC, and Mary K. Martin, for appellant.

        HENDRICKSON, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Michael Christopher Sefton, appeals from a decision of the Butler

County Court of Common Pleas revoking his community control and imposing a prison term.

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

        {¶2}     In March 2022, appellant pled guilty to obstructing official business in violation

of R.C. 2921.31(A), a felony of the fifth degree. He was sentenced on April 11, 2022, to
                                                                        Butler CA2022-08-075

five years of community control with a 12-month reserved prison term if he violated the

terms of his community control. The conditions of his community control included the

requirements that he undergo substance abuse and mental health assessments and follow

through with all recommended treatments.

       {¶3}   A few weeks after he was sentenced, on May 5, 2022, appellant's probation

officer filed a report and notice of a community control violation.        The notice alleged

appellant had violated Rule 5 of the terms and conditions of his community control, as he

had "failed to report to the probation department as ordered. His last report [was] on

4/12/2022 [and] [h]is whereabouts are currently unknown." The trial court issued a capias

for appellant's arrest.

       {¶4}   On July 15, 2022, appellant's probation officer filed a second report and notice

of a community control violation. The notice restated appellant's Rule 5 violation and added

a Rule 14 violation, as appellant had "failed to complete his drug and alcohol assessment

and mental health assessment as ordered by the court." Appellant was arrested on the

capias and was provided with written notice of his alleged community control violations on

July 15, 2022.

       {¶5}   A probable cause hearing was held on July 18, 2022. Appellant was present

and had the opportunity to cross-examine the probation officer who testified about the

nature of the alleged community control violations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the

magistrate found probable cause that appellant had violated the conditions of his

community control. The magistrate set the matter for a revocation hearing on July 25, 2022.

       {¶6}   Appellant was represented by counsel at the revocation hearing. At the start

of the hearing, the trial court provided appellant with oral notice of the two violations he was

alleged to have violated. Appellant's counsel immediately volunteered that appellant was

admitting to the violations, and appellant was given an opportunity to address the court as

                                             -2-
                                                                       Butler CA2022-08-075

follows:

               THE COURT: Mr. Sefton, you're here on a first-time probation
               violation of an underlying conviction, a felony 5, obstruction of
               official business. We have a rule 5 violation that Mr. Sefton has
               not reported since April 12th of this year; rule 15 [sic], has not
               completed drug and alcohol assessment or mental health
               assessment. [Defense Counsel] where are we?

               [DEFENSE COUNSEL]; Honestly, I don't think those conditions
               have been met. We can go ahead and admit the violations. I'd
               like to try and get back into compliance. But –

               THE COURT: Me too.

               [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yup. But he didn't report.                And
               obviously, the assessment has not been completed.

               THE COURT: Mr. Sefton, what would you like to say today?

               [APPELLANT]: If at all possible, I'd like you to reinstate me. I
               knew I can do right – I know I can do it right.

Based on the admission, the trial court found appellant in violation of the terms of his

community control. After noting appellant's extensive criminal history, which included a

prior felony conviction for aggravated assault and misdemeanor convictions for attempted

vandalism, resisting arrest, fleeing from a police officer, telephone harassment, aggravated

menacing, criminal damaging, as well as his troubling pattern of combative behavior toward

the police and his most recent failure to abide by the terms of his community control, the

court revoked appellant's community control and sentenced him to the reserved 12-month

prison term.

       {¶7}    Appellant appealed from the revocation of his community control, raising the

following as his sole assignment of error:

       {¶8}    APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DURING HIS

PROBATION VIOLATION HEARING.

       {¶9}    Appellant argues his procedural due process rights were violated during the

                                             -3-
                                                                      Butler CA2022-08-075

community control revocation hearing because the trial court failed to inform him of his right

to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him and to present evidence and

witnesses on his own behalf. As a result, appellant contends that he did not knowingly and

intelligently waive those rights before admitting to the community control violation.

       {¶10} As an initial matter, we note that "'Crim.R. 11 is not applicable to revocation

proceedings.'" State v. Mullins, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2011-10-195 and CA2011-10-196,

2012-Ohio-5005, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Payne, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2001-09-081, 2002

Ohio App. LEXIS 1892, *8 (Apr. 22, 2002). A defendant at a community control violation

hearing is therefore "not entitled to Crim.R. 11(C) dialogue at the revocation proceeding."

Id. Accord State v. Cunningham, 2d Dist. Clark Nos. 2014-CA-99 and 2014-CA-100, 2015-

Ohio-2554, ¶ 14 ("A trial court need not comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11 which

governs pleas, in accepting an offender's admission to community control violations"); State

v. Parsons, 4th Dist. Athens No. 09CA4, 2009-Ohio-7068, ¶ 11 ("the requirements of

Crim.R. 11[C][2] do not apply to a community-control-violation hearing").

       {¶11} Though Crim.R. 11 does not apply to revocation proceedings, Crim.R. 32.3

does apply. Crim.R. 32.3 provides, in relevant part, the following:

              (A) Hearing. The court shall not impose a prison term for
              violation of the conditions of a community control sanction or
              revoke probation except after a hearing at which the defendant
              shall be present and apprised of the grounds on which action is
              proposed. The defendant may be admitted to bail pending
              hearing.

              (B) Counsel. The defendant shall have the right to be
              represented by retained counsel and shall be so advised.
              Where a defendant convicted of a serious offense is unable to
              obtain counsel, counsel shall be assigned to represent the
              defendant, unless the defendant after being fully advised of his
              or her right to assigned counsel, knowingly, intelligently, and
              voluntarily waives the right to counsel. Where a defendant
              convicted of a petty offense is unable to obtain counsel, the
              court may assign counsel to represent the defendant.

                                            -4-
                                                                      Butler CA2022-08-075

       {¶12} Although it is not a criminal proceeding, a community control revocation

proceeding must nonetheless comport with the requirements of due process. Payne at *6,

citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786, 93 S.Ct. 1756 (1973). A defendant is entitled

to a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the

defendant violated the terms of his community control and then a final revocation hearing,

at which time evidence is presented. Mullins at ¶ 10; State v. Norman, 2d Dist. Clark Nos.

CA2017-CA-40 and 2017-CA-41, 2018-Ohio-993, ¶ 17. The due process rights which must

be observed in a community control revocation hearing are (1) written notice of the claimed

violations of community control, (2) disclosure of evidence against the offender, (3) an

opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary 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 finder as to the evidence relied upon

and the reasons for revoking community control. State v. Noonan, 12th Dist. Butler Nos.

CA2018-10-203 and CA2018-10-204, 2019-Ohio-2960, ¶ 13. "A defendant may elect to

forgo a hearing on the merits of the alleged community control violations and admit to the

violations. Where a defendant elects to do so, the trial court is not required to comply with

the requirements of Crim.R. 11, which governs pleas." Norman at ¶ 19.

       {¶13} The record reveals that the trial court fully complied with Crim.R. 32.3 and that

appellant was provided with due process in the revocation of his community control.

Appellant was present, with counsel, and he was apprised of the grounds on which action

was proposed. Not only had appellant been provided with written notice of his Rule 5 and

Rule 14 community control violations, but the trial court orally advised appellant of the

alleged violations at the start of the July 25, 2022 revocation hearing. By admitting, through

counsel, to violating the terms of his community control, appellant waived the requirement

that the state present evidence and call witnesses against him. He further waived the right

                                            -5-
                                                                     Butler CA2022-08-075

to cross-examine or call witnesses. See State v. Frazier, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104596,

2017-Ohio-470, ¶ 12.

       {¶14} Appellant contends that nothing in the record demonstrates that he

understood the implication of admitting the community control violations, which included his

waiver of the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him and to present

evidence and witnesses on his own behalf. A similar argument was made by the defendant

in State v. Patton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103737, 2016-Ohio-4867. The Eighth District

held as follows:

              It is important to point out that Patton is not arguing on appeal
              that he did not understand the rights he was waiving when he
              admitted to the allegations. Instead, he simply argues that
              nothing in the record proves that he understood the implication
              of admitting to the allegations, which would include a waiver of
              his right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
              Patton misunderstands the burden of proof on this issue. In
              revocation hearings, trial courts are not obligated to procure a
              knowing waiver through a Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) colloquy like they
              are required to do before accepting a guilty plea. Therefore, the
              relevant consideration is not whether the record proves that he
              understood the rights he was waiving; it is whether the record in
              some way indicates that he did not understand the rights he was
              waiving. There is nothing in the record that indicates Patton
              unknowingly waived his rights. Generally, without affirmative
              evidence in the record indicating otherwise, we presume
              regularity in trial court proceedings. State v. Raber, 134 Ohio
              St.3d 350, 2012-Ohio-5636, 982 N.E.2d 684, ¶ 19. Presuming
              regularity in this instance would require us to presume that the
              trial court and the parties would not have proceeded past the
              evidentiary phase of the proceedings without Patton indicating
              his willingness to waive his rights, through a signed declaration
              or otherwise.

(Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 12.

       {¶15} As in Patton, there is nothing in the record before us indicating that appellant

did not understand the rights he was waiving. Appellant was represented by counsel.

Immediately after counsel admitted to the violations on appellant's behalf, appellant had the

opportunity to address the court. At no point in time did appellant, an individual with

                                            -6-
                                                                    Butler CA2022-08-075

extensive experience in the criminal justice system, indicate he had any questions about

the proceedings or indicate he did not wish to proceed with an admission to the allegations

that he violated his community control. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we find

that appellant was afforded his due process rights during the revocation of his community

control. Appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶16} Judgment affirmed.

      S. POWELL, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.

                                            -7-