State v. Nealeigh, 2011 Ohio 1416

Defendant Kristopher Nealeigh, along with codefendants, used heroin on June 28, 2009, and required emergency response.
Nealeigh was indicted for possession of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A),(C)(6)(a), a fifth-degree felony.
Prior to a final pretrial hearing, Nealeigh moved for intervention in lieu of conviction under R.C. 2951.041 and the court denied the motion orally.
Nealeigh pled no contest to the possession charge and was convicted; the court imposed three years of community control sanctions.
Nealeigh appealed, challenging only the denial of his motion for intervention in lieu of conviction.
The trial court’s written journal entry reiterated that it declined intervention, citing factors like extent of drug use and seriousness of consequences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial without a hearing was proper	State argues no hearing required when denying under a blanket policy.	Nealeigh asserts denial based on blanket policy without assessing eligibility.	Denied: no reversible error; denial deemed harmless without prejudice to eligibility analysis.
Whether denial without a hearing violated Crim.R. 52(A) or statutory discretion	State contends statute is discretionary and error is harmless if no prejudice.	Nealeigh contends lack of hearing shows improper exercise of discretion.	Harmless error; discretionary denial without a hearing did not prejudice rights.

State v. Rice, 180 Ohio App.3d 599 (Ohio App. 2009) (stated denial without hearing may be permissible; discretion exists)
State v. Leisten, 166 Ohio App.3d 805 (Ohio App. 2006) (hearing required to determine eligibility when considered)
State v. Lindberg, 2006-Ohio-1429 (Greene App. 2006) (trial court discretion in intervention in lieu of conviction)
State v. Schmidt, 149 Ohio App.3d 89 (Ohio App. 2002) (court may deny eligibility; discretion rests with trial court)
State v. Casto, 2009-Ohio-791 (Ohio App. 2009) (de novo review of legal questions about eligibility)