Judge revokes remaining probation for Killian Adebang after contested violations

Clayton County State Court Judge Tammy Long Hayward revoked the remaining seven months and one day of Killian Adebang’s probation following a contested probation revocation hearing on Jan. 28, 2025.

The state’s witnesses described two separate incidents in which officers responded to a residence and observed damage to the door and attempts by the defendant to force entry; one officer testified she later saw Adebang kick the damaged door, refusals to comply with verbal orders, and a subsequent use of force and arrest. Prosecutor Miss Ponder asked the court to “revoke the remaining balance,” citing the officers’ testimony that the defendant was observed at the location and had tried to kick down the door.

The hearing addressed both alleged new criminal offenses (criminal trespass and obstruction) and numerous technical violations of probation. Defense attorney Owen Lynch told the court his client would not stipulate to the alleged new criminal violations or the contact-with-victim allegation but would stipulate to technical violations and offered mitigation: that Adebang had been attending some classes, had worked, and has family obligations in Cameroon. Lynch asked the court to consider a lesser sanction, suggesting 120 days in custody as an alternative.

Two Union City officers testified for the state. Officer Tam Phan said she responded to a reported dispute at 51100 High Point Road, observed damage to the front door and dining chair, and later issued an arrest warrant. Sgt. Michael Simpkins described arriving at the scene Nov. 6, 2024, observing the damaged door and the victim standing at a window, then seeing the defendant return, kick the door and attempt to flee; Simpkins said the defendant refused commands, the officer unholstered a Taser that did not neutralize the subject, a use of force followed and the defendant was taken into custody. On cross-examination the defense established that Officer Phan did not encounter the defendant at the initial contact and that the residence was not the defendant’s address.

Judge Hayward said she had given Adebang time to comply with probation conditions and concluded the probationer had “not had a good history of showing up for probation and has not really been compliant.” The judge explained the purpose of probation and then announced: “the court is going to revoke 7 months and 1 day.” The court recorded that Adebang had been ordered 24 family-violence classes (documentation showed one class submitted in the file), 40 community-service hours not completed, and $450 in arrears; the probation balance remaining at the time of the petition was 7 months and 1 day.

After the ruling the court directed clerks to complete the order. Defense counsel requested consideration of credit or lesser sanctions but the judge explained her concern about protecting victims and ensuring probation orders have “teeth.” The court’s revocation was entered as a formal order.

Court action: revocation of the remaining probation term; clerk to prepare revocation order and commitment paperwork. No bail or bond change was recorded on the revocation order in the transcript.

Documentation and related matters from the hearing (class attendance, arrears, and specific dates of missed reporting) remain part of the court file.