State v. Ledford
2017 Ohio 149
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jasmine Ledford (age 21 at offense) was indicted on a 17-count indictment for a home-invasion, robbery, and assaults; she pled guilty to one count of aggravated robbery (first-degree felony) in exchange for dismissal of other counts.
- At sentencing the trial court found her conduct "more serious than a typical case" and imposed a 4-year prison term, plus costs and restitution.
- Ledford filed a motion for judicial release after serving roughly two years; at the judicial-release hearing she presented evidence of cooperation, mental-health treatment needs, family support, education/job plans, and efforts to pay restitution.
- The trial court granted judicial release, placing Ledford on five years of intensive community control, finding that factors showing her conduct was less serious outweighed those showing greater seriousness and that non-prison sanctions would not demean the offense.
- The State appealed, contending the record did not clearly and convincingly support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.20(J)(1)(b), especially given the court’s prior sentencing finding that the conduct was "more serious."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's grant of judicial release is unsupported by clear and convincing evidence under R.C. 2929.20(J)(1)(b) | Trial: The record cannot support finding the offense was less serious when the court previously found the conduct "more serious" at sentencing | Def: A judicial-release hearing is a new hearing allowing reevaluation of factors and consideration of post-sentencing changes (rehabilitation, treatment, support) | Court affirmed: appellate review is deferential; the record supported the trial court's new findings and grant of judicial release |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (sets appellate standard: modification/vacatur only if record fails to support trial-court findings by clear and convincing evidence or sentence is contrary to law)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (defines "clear and convincing evidence" standard)