State v. Smith, 2012 Ohio 3395

Smith was convicted on three counts of felony non-support under R.C. 2919.21(B).
He moved for intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC); the trial court held a hearing and reviewed an ILC evaluation.
The court denied ILC citing that granting it would demean the seriousness of the offenses, aligning with a local judge’s philosophy, and Smith pled no contest thereafter.
At the time, former R.C. 2951.041(A)(1) allowed pre-plea ILC consideration and required a hearing if considered, plus an eligibility assessment.
R.C. 2951.041(B)(6) required that drug/alcohol usage was a factor, ILC would not demean seriousness, and would reduce future criminal activity.
Eligibility determinations under R.C. 2951.041(C) are reviewed de novo; the court must decide eligibility and whether to grant ILC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of ILC rested on a proper legal basis.	Smith argues denial based on judicial philosophy was improper.	Smith argues the court considered the report and did not auto-deny; it reasonably weighed eligibility.	No reversible error; court properly considered eligibility and did not rely on automatic denial.
Whether the court properly applied eligibility under R.C. 2951.041(B)(6).	Smith contends he met statutory criteria for ILC.	Court found ILC would demean the seriousness and that criteria were not satisfied.	Court correctly determined Smith failed to satisfy B(6); denial was not an abuse of discretion.

State v. Baker, 2012-Ohio-729 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24510, 2012-Ohio-729) (eligibility determinations are reviewed de novo; discretion to grant ILC)
State v. Drake, 2011-Ohio-25 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23838) (discretionary decision on ILC; noted ILC eligibility constraints)
State v. Pence, 2010-Ohio-5901 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23837) (non-support offenses and ILC eligibility considerations)
State v. Sorrell, 2010-Ohio-1618 (2d Dist. Montgomery) (statutory ineligibility under former provisions; implications for ILC)