State v. White, 031819 OHCA9, 18CA011278

Docket Nº:18CA011278
Opinion Judge:DONNA J. CARR JUDGE.
Party Name:STATE OF OHIO Appellee v. QUINN WHITE Appellant
Attorney:APPEARANCES: MICHAEL E. STEPANIK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and BRIAN P. MURPHY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:TEODOSIO, P. J. CALLAHAN, J. CONCUR.
Case Date:March 18, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

2019-Ohio-905

STATE OF OHIO Appellee

v.

QUINN WHITE Appellant

No. 18CA011278

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain

March 18, 2019

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 17CR095944

APPEARANCES: MICHAEL E. STEPANIK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and BRIAN P. MURPHY, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

DONNA J. CARR JUDGE.

{¶1} Appellant, Quinn White, appeals the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} On May 5, 2017, the Lorain County Grand Jury charged White with one count of carrying a concealed weapon and one count of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle. After pleading not guilty to the charges at arraignment, White filed a motion for intervention in lieu of conviction ("ILC") pursuant to R.C. 2951.041. The trial court referred White to the Adult Probation Department for evaluation and an eligibility report. Thereafter, White appeared before the trial court and entered a guilty plea to the charges in the indictment. Several weeks later, the parties appeared for a hearing on White's ILC motion. The trial court ultimately denied the motion on the basis that it did not see a connection between addiction issues and the crimes charged. The matter proceeded to sentencing where the trial court imposed a three-year term of community control.

{¶3} On appeal, White raises one assignment of error.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO GRANT APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR INTERVENTION IN LIEU OF CONVICTION WHEN HE WAS STATUTORILY ELIGIBLE PURSUANT TO R.C. 2951.041(B).

{¶4} In his sole assignment of error, White contends that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying his ILC motion. Specifically, White contends that the trial court misinterpreted the eligibility conditions set forth in R.C. 2951.041(B)(6). This Court disagrees.

{¶5} The statutory scheme governing ILC is set forth in R.C. 2951.041.1 R.C. 2951.041(A)(1) states that "[i]f an offender is charged with a criminal offense * * * and the court has reason to believe that drug or alcohol usage by the offender was a factor leading to the criminal offense with which the offender is charged * * * the court may accept, prior to the entry of a guilty plea, the offender's request for [ILC]." The statute further provides as follows: The court may reject an offender's request without a hearing. If 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 [ILC] and shall stay all criminal proceedings pending the outcome of the hearing. If the court schedules a hearing, the court shall order an assessment of the offender for the purpose of determining the offender's eligibility for [ILC] and recommending an...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP