State v. Loe
This text of 2017 Ohio 994 (State v. Loe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Loe, 2017-Ohio-994.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-15-080 WD-15-081 Appellee
v. Trial Court No. 2015CR0021 2014CR0447 Brian Loe
Appellant DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: March 17, 2017
*****
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
JENSEN, J.
{¶ 1} This is a consolidated appeal wherein appellant, Brian Loe, challenges the
November 30, 2015 judgments of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas sentencing
him to two concurrent three-year community control sanctions. Finding no error, we
affirm. Assignment of Error
{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth the following assignment of error:
The trial court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s
Motion for Intervention in Lieu of Conviction.
Background Facts
{¶ 3} This appeal is from Wood County Court of Common Pleas case Nos. 2014-
CR-0447 and 2015-CR-0021.
{¶ 4} In case No. 2014-CR-0447, appellant was charged with forgery in violation
of R.C. 2913.31(A)(2) and (C)(1)(b), a felony of the fifth degree; theft in violation of
R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(2), a felony of the fifth degree; and, petty theft in violation of
R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(2), a misdemeanor of the first degree. On December 2,
2014, appellant was arraigned and pled not guilty to the charges of case No. 2014-CR-
0447. On December 5, 2014, appellant requested intervention in lieu of conviction.
{¶ 5} In case No. 2015-CR-0021, appellant was charged with forgery in violation
of R.C. 2913.31(A)(2) and (C)(1)(b), a felony of the fifth degree. On February 3, 2015,
appellant was arraigned and pled not guilty to the charge brought under No. 2015-CR-
0021. Bond was set and pretrial conference was scheduled for February 24, 2015. On
February 24, 2015, the cases were consolidated for purposed of trial and sentencing.
Trial was continued multiple times thereafter, and eventually a jury trial was scheduled
for October 7, 2015.
2. {¶ 6} On March 30, 2015, the state requested the court revoke bond due to
appellant failing to satisfy conditions by testing positive for morphine, and the trial court
revoked appellant’s bond. Appellant made requests for intervention in lieu of conviction.
On June 11, 2015, appellant filed a brief in support of his requests, and on July 23, 2015,
the state filed a memo contra. On August 18, 2015, a hearing was held on appellant’s
motions for intervention in lieu of conviction. On August 20, 2015, the court denied
appellant’s motions.
{¶ 7} Appellant then moved to withdraw his not guilty pleas and entered pleas of
no contest to all counts. The court accepted the pleas and found appellant guilty. On
November 24, 2015, the court held a sentencing hearing. The court imposed two
concurrent three-year community control sanctions for both case Nos. 2014-CR-0021 and
2015-CR-0021. The court further ordered appellant to pay restitution in the amount of
$2,204.13, which was to be disbursed to the four victims relating to the cases.
{¶ 8} It is from these judgments appellant now timely appeals.
Standard of Review
{¶ 9} We review felony sentences under a two-prong approach. R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate
and remand a disputed sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the
following:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings
under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of
3. section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code,
whichever, if any, is relevant; or
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶ 10} See State v. Kinsinger, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-15-1118, 2015-Ohio-5309, ¶
10; see also State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶
23.
Law and Analysis
{¶ 11} In his sole assigned error, appellant challenges his sentence by asserting the
trial court should have accepted his request for intervention in lieu of conviction.
Appellee contends the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request because the
court properly found intervention would be futile.
{¶ 12} R.C. 2951.041(A) states “[t]he court may reject an offender’s request
without a hearing.” Further, this section provides, “[i]f the court elects to consider an
offender’s request, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the offender is
eligible under this section for intervention in lieu of conviction and shall stay all criminal
proceedings pending the outcome of the hearing.” Id.
{¶ 13} R.C. 2951.041(C) follows, “[a]t the conclusion of a hearing held pursuant
to division (A) of this section, the court shall enter its determination as to whether the
offender is eligible for intervention in lieu of conviction and as to whether to grant the
offender’s request.” Moreover, the section states, “[i]f the court finds that the offender is
not eligible or does not grant the offender’s request, the criminal proceedings against the
4. offender shall proceed as if the offender’s request for intervention in lieu of conviction
had not been made.” Id.
{¶ 14} The decision whether to grant intervention in lieu of conviction under R.C.
2951.041 is within the trial court’s sound discretion. State v. Zepeda, 6th Dist. Wood No.
WD-13-003, 2014-Ohio-1311, ¶ 12. The opportunity to participate in intervention in lieu
of conviction is not a right, but a privilege. Id.; see also State v. Birch, 12th Dist. Butler
No. CA10-10-25602, 2012-Ohio-543, ¶ 37; State v. Dempsey, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
82154, 2003-Ohio-2579, ¶ 9.
{¶ 15} In this case, the trial court conducted an intervention in lieu of conviction
hearing on August 18, 2015, and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome. See R.C.
2951.041(A). At the hearing, the court determined that based on “multiple offenses and
multiple positive drug tests,” the likelihood of appellant’s success in intervention was
“nonexistent.” The record reveals appellant and the state agreed to allow for intervention
but that appellant tested positive for morphine, during pendency of his bond, which
triggered appellee’s motion to revoke bond and oppose intervention. After the hearing,
the court entered its determination finding against appellant’s request for intervention,
and the case properly proceeded as if no request was made. See R.C. 2951.041(C). Trial
commenced and appellant was eventually sentenced to concurrent terms of three years
community control. See R.C. 2929.15(A) (“the court may directly impose a sentence that
consists of one or more community control sanctions”).
5. {¶ 16} Therefore, the record reflects the trial court complied with R.C. 2951.041
in making its determination regarding intervention. Further, we note the ultimate
decision was within the court’s discretion, and the record amply supports the denial of
intervention and the imposed sentence.
{¶ 17} Accordingly, there is no merit to appellant’s assigned error.
Conclusion
{¶ 18} The judgments of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.
Appellant is ordered to pay costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2017 Ohio 994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-loe-ohioctapp-2017.