State v. Survilla
2023 Ohio 255
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2023Background
- In May 2021 Julie A. Survilla was indicted for one count of aggravated possession of drugs (fifth-degree felony). She initially pleaded not guilty.
- In November 2021 Survilla moved for intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC), then pleaded guilty in this and two related cases; the State agreed not to oppose ILC and to dismiss a count in another case.
- The trial court granted ILC and deferred a guilty finding conditioned on completion of the program.
- In December 2021 Survilla was reported to have violated ILC (positive drug tests and missed tests); the court ordered a show-cause hearing.
- At the May 24, 2022 termination hearing Survilla admitted the violations; the court revoked ILC, found her guilty, and sentenced her to 180 days in jail on the count in this case (concurrent with sentences in the other two cases).
- Survilla appealed only the sentence in this case, arguing the court imposed (what she described as) a maximum sentence and failed to consider alternative sanctions such as drug court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing a 180-day jail term without considering alternative sentencing (e.g., drug court) | State: Sentence is within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; Jones prevents appellate reversal for alleged failure to weigh those factors | Survilla: Court imposed a maximum sentence and failed to consider alternatives like drug court | Affirmed: Sentence lawful. Six months is within the statutory range (the minimum here), the court considered statutory factors, and Jones precludes vacating a felony sentence based solely on a record-sufficiency claim under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (explains R.C. 2953.08 appellate-review framework)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (early statement of the clear-and-convincing evidence definition)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (recognizes broad trial-court sentencing discretion)
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (a court’s statement that it considered statutory sentencing factors suffices on the record)
- State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 (Ohio 2020) (holds R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not permit appellate vacatur based solely on alleged failure to satisfy R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)