While serving First Offender probation for drug offenses, Jody Greathouse signed several consent revocation orders that imposed sanctions and required inpatient treatment. A December 2023 order suspended a sentence requiring him to serve the balance of his term in prison if he failed treatment, and purported to waive any future revocation hearing. After Greathouse left the program, the trial court ordered him into custody based on a supervision officer’s affidavit, without giving him an opportunity to deny or explain the alleged violation. The Court of Appeals held that due process and OCGA § 42-8-34.1 did not permit prospective waiver of a hearing on a future violation; revocation requires the probationer’s admission or evidence establishing the violation at a hearing. It vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings. The court rejected Greathouse’s separate argument that earlier graduated sanctions limited the trial court’s options on remand.