State v. Kidwell-Tilton
2017 Ohio 9094
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In June 2015 Kaitlyn Kidwell-Tilton was indicted on three fifth-degree felonies: one count aggravated possession (R.C. 2925.11) and two counts permitting drug abuse (R.C. 2925.13) based on allegations she allowed her residence to be used for drug trafficking and officers found MDMA on her.
- She was granted intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC) in Oct. 2015 with conditions including community control, no drugs, random testing, and no contact with the trafficker Daniel Lewis.
- After multiple violations (assault, disorderly conduct, theft, residence changes, drug use, contact with Lewis), the court revoked ILC and imposed community control with SAMI diversion; the court warned that further violations could trigger 12-month terms per count to run consecutively.
- Following another positive cocaine test in April 2017, the court revoked community control in May 2017 and imposed 12 months on each count, to be served consecutively, with credit for 260 days.
- Kidwell-Tilton appealed, arguing the trial court erred in imposing maximum consecutive sentences and failed to properly consider statutory sentencing factors.
- The Twelfth District affirmed, finding the court engaged the required R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 analysis, made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record, and that the record supported consecutive sentences given her violations and history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lawfully imposed consecutive, maximum prison terms under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | The court complied with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and made the required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record and in the entry | Kidwell-Tilton contends the court failed to consider proper statutory factors and the record doesn't support consecutive sentences | Affirmed: court made required findings and the record supports consecutive sentences |
| Whether the court considered purposes/principles of sentencing (R.C. 2929.11) and seriousness/recidivism factors (R.C. 2929.12) | The sentencing entry and oral statements show consideration of these factors | Kidwell-Tilton asserts the court ignored evidence of remorse and progress and thus failed to properly weigh factors | Affirmed: trial court sufficiently considered those factors; no clear-and-convincing showing of error |
| Whether the facts support at least one R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) predicate (e.g., offender's criminal history) | The defendant’s repeated violations, drug use, contact with a trafficker, and permitting her home for trafficking justify the subsection (c) finding (history of criminal conduct) | Kidwell-Tilton argues she posed risk only to herself and not to the public; record insufficient for consecutive terms | Affirmed: record supports necessity to protect public and that offender history warranted consecutive terms |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must engage in statutory sentencing analysis but need not recite statutory language verbatim; findings must appear in record/entry)