State v. Belcher, 94 N.E.3d 945

Background

Defendant Renee Belcher pled guilty in 2008 to aggravated robbery (1st), aggravated burglary (1st), and kidnapping (2nd) in connection with an armed home invasion; aggregate agreed sentence was 15 years (with three mandatory).
Belcher served ~22 months, then filed for judicial release in 2010 (denied). She filed again in April 2016 with program certificates, commendations, and evidence of 1,337 hours of community service.
At the 2016 hearing, the prosecutor opposed judicial release (arguing plea bargain/seriousness, predatory conduct, and prior offenses); Belcher testified to rehabilitation (GED, programs, trade skills, remorse).
The trial court granted judicial release, placing Belcher on three years of community control (including electronic monitoring, curfew, exclusion/no-contact with victims, and treatment requirements), and made the findings required by R.C. 2929.20(J)(1).
The State appealed, arguing (1) the modification breached the plea agreement and was contrary to law, and (2) the record did not support the statutory findings required for judicial release.
The appellate court affirmed. It declined to reach the plea-agreement/contrary-to-law argument for lack of jurisdiction under Cunningham, and held the record supports the trial court's R.C. 2929.20(J)(1) findings under the deferential R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Belcher)	Held
1. May the State appeal a sentence modification as "contrary to law" when judicial release modifies the original sentence for 1st/2nd degree felonies?	Cunningham limits the State's right to appeal sentence modifications as "contrary to law," so the State lacks jurisdiction to raise that contention.	Not directly argued below; Belcher opposed on merits and relied on Cunningham-based limits.	The court declined to reach the plea‑agreement/contrary‑to‑law argument, concluding Cunningham controls and the appellate scope is limited; jurisdictional challenge sustained.
2. Did granting judicial release breach the parties' plea agreement/Agreed Judgment Entry?	The State: judicial release effectively nullified the parties' bargained 15‑year term.	Belcher: trial court retained authority to consider judicial release; statutory process satisfied.	Court did not decide on the merits due to jurisdictional limitation (Cunningham).
3. Did the record support the trial court's finding under R.C. 2929.20(J)(1)(a) that a non‑prison sanction would adequately punish and protect the public?	The State: aggravating recidivism factors (prior convictions, failure to respond to sanctions, likelihood of recurrence) outweigh mitigating factors.	Belcher: evidence of rehabilitation, absence of physical injury, limited active role (driver) and addiction mitigate recidivism risk.	Held: record contains evidence supporting the trial court's balancing; appellate review is extremely deferential, so finding stands.
4. Did the record support the trial court's finding under R.C. 2929.20(J)(1)(b) that judicial release would not demean the seriousness of the offense?	The State: facts show aggravated, predatory conduct (targeting elderly, use of firearm) that demeans seriousness; mitigating factors do not outweigh aggravators.	Belcher: remorse, prior law‑abiding years, addiction motive, no physical injuries, and rehabilitative steps weigh in favor.	Held: trial court's weighing (including other relevant factors per R.C. 2929.12(A)) is supported by the record and within its discretion; finding affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ledford, 77 N.E.3d 479 (Ohio 2017) (standard of review and principles for judicial release hearings)
State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of sentencing under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
Cross v. Ledford, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Cunningham, 863 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio 2007) (limits on the State's right to appeal sentence modifications as "contrary to law")