Background
Larry J. Collins Jr. pleaded guilty to violating a protection order and, after a jury trial, was convicted of abduction. At his November 2023 sentencing, the Greene County Common Pleas Court placed him on community control and notified him that a violation could result in up to 180 days for the protection-order offense and between 9 and 36 months for abduction.
In 2025, Collins tested positive several times for methamphetamine and did not provide required treatment documentation. The court modified his community control to require six months at the MonDay community-based correctional facility. After completing that program, Collins again tested positive for methamphetamine and admitted using it. Probation also alleged that he had made no required financial payments.
The trial court found probable cause for the drug-use violation but not the payment violation, given questions about Collins’s ability to pay. At the later revocation hearing, Collins admitted violating community control, waived further hearings, and agreed to proceed to sentencing. The court found him not amenable to continued supervision and imposed concurrent prison terms of 180 days and 30 months, with 328 days of credit.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. It held that Collins received the process required for a community-control revocation and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking community control and imposing prison.
Collins’s undisputed methamphetamine use, a violation of Rule 9, independently authorized the court to act on all convictions subject to community control. Under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1), one violation permits the sentencing court to impose a prison term when the defendant received proper notice of the potential sanctions at original sentencing. Collins had received that notice.
The court also rejected Collins’s challenge based on the financial-payment allegation. Although the trial court initially found no probable cause on that allegation, Collins later admitted violating Rule 12, and in any event the Rule 9 drug violation alone supported the prison sentence.
Key Takeaways
- A single proven community-control violation can authorize prison on all convictions subject to the sanction when proper original sentencing notice was given.
- An admission to a community-control violation need not satisfy Criminal Rule 11; Criminal Rule 32.3 governs the revocation proceeding.
- A later-admitted drug-use violation supported revocation regardless of the disputed financial-payment allegation.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Ohio courts may revoke community control based on one violation without separately establishing every alleged violation. It also underscores the importance of the prison-term notice included in the original sentencing entry.
For defense counsel, the case illustrates that even a relapse framed as part of recovery can support revocation where the defendant admits prohibited drug use and the record supports a finding that continued community control is not appropriate.