DocketNumber: C.A. Case No. 19907.
Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 2416
Judges: FREDERICK N. YOUNG, J.
Filed Date: 5/14/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} On December 12, 2002, Ms. Bolden pled guilty to one count of driving under suspension in violation of R.C.
{¶ 3} On appeal, Ms. Bolden, represented by counsel, presents the following three assignments of error:
{¶ 4} "1. The court violated appellant's right to be free from double jeopardy as provided by the
{¶ 5} "2. Assuming arguendo that the court properly held appellant's revocation hearing, the court abused its discretion in finding that ms. bolden had violated her probation by failing to pay her fines and costs.
{¶ 6} "3. The trial court abused its discretion when, after finding appellant in violation of her probation, converted her fines and costs to community service."
{¶ 7} The State filed a brief essentially conceding the first assignment of error and admitting that the conversion on probation from unsupervised to supervised, without a hearing, violated her constitutional rights to be free from double jeopardy as well as other due process claims.
{¶ 8} The State further concedes under the second assignment of error that a court does not have absolute authority to revoke an offender's probation simply because a probationer fails to pay fines and costs. Moreover, the State admits that after reviewing the transcript of the revocation hearing, it would appear that Ms. Bolden would fit the definition of indigence which would have negated revocation at that time.
{¶ 9} As to the third assignment of error, the State notes that it would be moot if we follow its request that we vacate the order changing Ms. Bolden's probationary status from unsupervised to supervised. The State also states, however, that it sees no need for the court to set a specific number of hours of community service. That should be done by the probation department using the federal minimum wage.
{¶ 10} We agree with the State that the first assignment of error must be sustained and the order changing Ms. Bolden's probationary status from unsupervised to supervised will be vacated. Upon remand, the court may hold its hearing if the probation department files a request for further proceedings against Ms. Bolden. If the hearing is held after remand, the trial court can consider Ms. Bolden's possible indigence and proceed as required by law.
{¶ 11} The judgment is reversed, the order changing Ms. Bolden's probationary status from unsupervised to supervised is hereby vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Wolff, J. and Grady, J., concur.