State v. Peltier
2019 Ohio 569
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Larry E. Peltier Jr. was indicted for aggravated possession of fentanyl (5th‑degree felony), possession of drug abuse instruments (1st‑degree misdemeanor), and possession of drug paraphernalia (4th‑degree misdemeanor) after an overdose and a search of his bedroom produced drug-related items; his urine tested positive for fentanyl.
- Peltier pled guilty to all counts, received a PSI, and was sentenced to three years of community control (no prison) with conditions including no association with persons with criminal backgrounds without probation permission.
- After an alleged December 29, 2017 violation (DUI with passengers including a person with a criminal history), Peltier admitted the violations and the court returned him to community control but ordered he complete the West Central residential treatment program.
- Peltier left the West Central Program on April 18, 2018; he admitted this violation at a May 4, 2018 hearing, and the trial court revoked community control and sentenced him to 12 months in prison (with 85 days credit).
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non‑frivolous issues; this Court performed an independent Anders review and affirmed the revocation and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assert immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) (overdose‑assistance immunity) | Appellate counsel suggested ineffective assistance could be raised because evidence was obtained after an overdose | Peltier (conceded by counsel) was not a “qualified individual” because he was under community control for a separate matter at the time, so immunity did not apply | Court held the claim lacks merit and is not properly before this appeal; Peltier cannot collaterally attack the unappealed conviction in a revocation appeal |
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to make the statutory findings when recommending placement in an intensive program prison (IPP) under R.C. 2929.19(D) | Appellant argued the trial court’s brief statement about the “nature of the community control violations” may not satisfy R.C. 2929.19(D)’s findings requirement | Trial court argued it considered the violations and record and recommended IPP (a beneficial placement) | Court found any deficiency in the statutory finding, if error, was harmless because IPP benefits the defendant; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes appellate counsel’s duty to file a brief and court’s independent review when counsel asserts the appeal is frivolous)
- State v. Howard, 190 Ohio App.3d 734 (Ohio Ct. App.) (discusses IPP programs and the effect of successful completion on sentence reduction)