State v. Horton
Decision Date | 02 November 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 17AP–266,17AP–266 |
Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Timothy S. HORTON, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
On brief: Matthew J. Donahue, Special Prosecutor for Franklin County, Ohio, Ohio Attorney General's Office, and Daniel M. Kasaris, Cleveland, for appellee. Argued: Matthew J. Donahue.
On brief: Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, David H. Thomas, Kathryn S. Wallrabenstein, and Michael K. Robertson, Columbus, for appellant. Argued: David H. Thomas.
DECISION
McGrath, J.{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Timothy S. Horton, a judge of the Tenth Appellate District, seeks to appeal his sentence after, on Horton's guilty plea, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas convicted Horton of failure to file accurate campaign statements in violation of R.C. 3517.13(B). Because Horton waived his right to appeal his sentence, because Horton's sentence is not an abuse of discretion, and because the trial court's imposition of restitution does not constitute plain error, we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} Plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, by and through a special prosecuting attorney, filed an information charging Horton with three counts of failure to file accurate statements in violation of R.C. 3517.13(B), misdemeanors of the first degree. The state asserted that Horton willfully and unlawfully reported expenditures to his campaign treasurer while knowing that they were unreasonable and excessive in amounts, thereby causing inaccurate campaign finance reports to be filed with the Ohio Secretary of State.
{¶ 3} According to the state, on or about March 4, 2014, Horton held a fundraiser at a restaurant where "only one person, aside from Horton and his campaign staff, were present at this event." The state asserted that the expenses from this fundraiser totaled $978.75, with Horton willfully reporting this expenditure to his campaign treasurer while knowing that it was excessive and unreasonable in amount. The state also asserted that in late March 2014 Horton learned that his opponent for a seat on the court of appeals was withdrawing his candidacy. And, according to the state, on or about March 24, 2014, which was near the time that Horton learned his opponent for an appellate judgeship was withdrawing his candidacy, Horton held a private campaign event consisting of a dinner at Hyde Park restaurant in downtown Columbus, Ohio, and he used funds of his campaign committee to pay for the food and beverages of attendees at a cost of $1,014.09. Additionally, according to the state, on or about July 23, 2014, Horton, who at that point was unopposed in his bid for the appellate judgeship, purchased cigars, which were intended to be made available to campaign supporters during campaign functions. This expenditure allegedly totaled $173.29.
{¶ 5} In the petition to enter a guilty plea Horton also informed the trial court that he understood that the trial court had discretion whether to impose community control sanctions. And Horton represented to the court that
{¶ 6} Additionally, in a document labeled Entry Of Guilty Plea, Horton indicated to the trial court that he understood that by pleading guilty he "waive[d] a number of important and substantial constitutional, statutory and procedural rights, which include * * * the right to appeal the verdict and rulings of the trial court made before or during trial, should those rulings or verdict be against my interests."
{¶ 7} On February 2, 2017, the trial court, through a visiting judge, conducted a plea hearing. At the hearing the special prosecuting attorney informed the trial court that the parties had reached an agreement wherein Horton had waived prosecution by indictment and agreed to proceed by a bill of information. (Tr., 2.) Horton's counsel informed the trial court that the petition to enter a guilty plea constituted the parties' plea agreement. (Tr., 5.) The trial court recognized the waiver of indictment and it agreed to proceed with the plea. (Tr., 5.) After the court granted the special prosecuting attorney's request to put "some additional technical points" of the plea agreement on the record, the special prosecuting attorney informed the court, * * *." (Tr., 8–9.) After the special prosecuting attorney made his representation, defense counsel stated: "That is correct, Your Honor." (Tr., 9.) The trial court later inquired of Horton, stating:
(Tr., 9–10.) Thereafter the trial court reviewed with Horton the rights he was waiving by entering a guilty plea as well as the offenses contained in the bill of information. The court accepted Horton's guilty pleas, found that Horton knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his guilty pleas, and the trial court made a finding of guilt. (Tr., 13.) Because the court wished to know more about Horton and the circumstances of the matter before it, the trial court ordered a presentence investigation and set a date for sentencing. (Tr., 13.)
{¶ 8} On March 16, 2017, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing, affording opportunities to Horton to address the court, to the parties' counsel to present arguments, and to certain judges of the Tenth District Court of Appeals to speak in support of Horton. At the hearing, the court addressed Horton, noting:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Disciplinary Counsel v. Horton
...per week, and stay involved in the OLAP program. He appealed, and the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Horton , 2017-Ohio-8549, 99 N.E.3d 1090 (10th Dist.).{¶ 13} Horton admitted that his conduct violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 but denied that it violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) or (......
-
State v. Jefferies
...No. 2017-CA-8, 2018-Ohio-1532, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Fankle, 2015-Ohio-1581, 31 N.E.3d 1290, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.); see also State v. Horton, 2017-Ohio-8549, 99 N.E.3d 1090, ¶ 36 (10th Dist.). "Abuse of discretion" has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable......
-
State v. Bennett, 27943
...¶ 18 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Peagler , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24426, 2012-Ohio-737, 2012 WL 601189, ¶ 3 ; see also State v. Horton , 2017-Ohio-8549, 99 N.E.3d 1090, ¶ 36 (10th Dist.).{¶ 43} The jail sentence imposed by the trial court in Bennett's case is within the range authorized by......
-
State v. Jacobs, CASE NO. 8-18-38
...of his argument. See Doc. 111. The State urges this Court to follow the holding of the Tenth District as stated in State v. Horton, 2017-Ohio-8549, 99 N.E.3d 1090 (10th Dist.). This Court recently considered this exactargument in State v. Watkins, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-18-21, 2018-Ohio-4921,......