Background
On December 12, 2023, William Dupree pleaded guilty to criminal mischief and was placed on two years’ probation. In June 2024, his probation officer filed violations alleging domestic violence and assault charges in a separate case. On February 20, 2025, a second statement of violations was filed, charging Dupree with failing to appear for three scheduled appointments and drug screens, failing to pay probation fees and court costs, and failing to provide verification of a counseling assessment.
A revocation hearing was initially scheduled for March 12, 2025 but was continued. On April 30, 2025, the trial court held a probation revocation hearing. During the hearing, Dupree repeatedly requested the assistance of counsel, but the trial court denied his requests without conducting a formal waiver of the right to counsel. The trial court then revoked Dupree’s probation and ordered him to serve 69 days in the Franklin County Corrections Center.
Dupree, through counsel, appealed, raising two assignments of error: violation of his due process rights and violation of his right to counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals sustained both assignments of error and reversed the trial court’s judgment. First, the court held that the trial court violated Dupree’s due process rights by revoking his probation without making a formal legal determination that he had violated the terms of his probation. The court cited Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1973), establishing that probation revocation requires two analytically distinct steps: (1) a factual determination of whether the probationer actually violated one or more conditions of probation, and (2) a determination of whether to revoke probation or take other action. The trial court’s revocation entry did not state that Dupree violated his probation, and the record showed no formal finding of violation despite the trial judge’s reference to Dupree having “previously been found” to violate probation.
Second, the court held that the trial court violated Dupree’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his right under Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution. The court noted that the right to counsel extends to probation revocation hearings in misdemeanor cases, including petty offenses, that could result in imprisonment, and specifically to cases involving suspended sentences capable of subsequent revocation. The trial court not only proceeded without Dupree having counsel, but ignored his repeated requests for counsel and failed to conduct a proper waiver under Crim.R. 44.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts must make an explicit, formal factual determination that a probationer violated the conditions of probation before proceeding to decide whether to revoke probation.
- Defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at probation revocation hearings, and trial courts must honor requests for counsel and conduct proper waivers under Crim.R. 44 if waiving that right.
- Probation revocation requires a two-step process: first determining whether a violation occurred, and only then deciding whether to revoke and impose incarceration.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces critical constitutional protections in probation revocation proceedings. Trial courts must follow proper due process procedures and cannot skip the foundational step of determining whether a violation actually occurred. The decision also protects defendants’ right to legal representation at revocation hearings that may result in incarceration, preventing trial courts from denying counsel requests without formal waivers. These procedural safeguards are essential to ensuring that probationers are not incarcerated based on trial court error or oversight.
For practitioners, this case underscores the importance of ensuring that all factual findings are explicitly stated in trial court entries and that clients’ requests for counsel are properly documented and addressed, whether granted or formally waived. Trial courts that bypass these procedural requirements face reversal on appeal.