State v. Roome
2017 Ohio 4230
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Samuel D. Roome was indicted for one count of trafficking in drugs (fifth-degree felony) after selling five Suboxone film strips to a confidential informant.
- Roome filed a request for Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (ILC) on August 12, 2016; the state opposed the request.
- The trial court denied Roome’s initial ILC request on August 17, 2016 and denied a renewed request on September 2, 2016, stating it rejected the request without a hearing though acknowledging statutory eligibility.
- Roome pleaded no contest to the trafficking charge on September 6, 2016; the court sentenced him to two years of community control (including 60 days in jail) and a suspended one-year prison term.
- Roome appealed, arguing (1) the court used a blanket policy to deny ILC for drug-trafficking defendants in violation of due process and equal protection, and (2) the plea hearing record was not properly preserved in violation of Crim.R. 22.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court unlawfully applied a "blanket policy" denying ILC for trafficking defendants | State: opposing memorandum noted such requests are traditionally denied for drug trafficking; implied practice supports denial | Roome: court used a blanket policy to deny ILC to trafficking defendants, violating due process/equal protection | Court: No evidence of a blanket policy; trial court permissibly exercised discretion under R.C. 2951.041(A)(1); no abuse of discretion |
| Whether denial of ILC violated Roome's constitutional due process and equal protection rights | State: discretionary statutory privilege; denial within court's discretion | Roome: categorical denial treated ILC as unavailable to similarly-situated defendants, violating constitutional protections | Court: ILC is a privilege, not a right; denial without a hearing was discretionary and not arbitrary or unconscionable; constitutional claims fail |
| Whether the inaudible plea hearing recording violated Crim.R. 22 and prejudiced Roome on appeal | State: record was made but later found inaudible; appellate rules allow appellant to prepare a statement when transcript unavailable | Roome: lack of transcript prejudiced his appeal and violated recording requirement | Court: Roome failed to use App.R. 9(C)(1) to prepare a statement of proceedings or show specific prejudice; general allegations insufficient; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (decision is unreasonable when unsupported by a sound reasoning process)