State v. Wagner
2017 Ohio 8653
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Tara Wagner was indicted on two counts of trafficking in drugs to a minor (with a specification) and two counts of corrupting another with drugs; she pled guilty to one trafficking count (with specification) and one corrupting-with-drugs count; two counts were dismissed.
- The plea admitted that on Feb. 14, 2016 Wagner sold one Suboxone pill to a juvenile in the vicinity of her 12‑year‑old stepdaughter at a convenience store; the juvenile later supplied or passed the pill to other children at the Adams County Children’s Home.
- At sentencing the trial court described broader drug problems at the Children’s Home, referenced multiple juveniles affected (including lost opportunities and subsequent criminal charges), and discussed harm beyond the single-pill sale.
- The trial court imposed concurrent prison terms of 18 months (trafficking) and 7 years (corruption), credited 125 days served, imposed an $800 fine, and suspended driver’s license; sentence was within statutory ranges.
- Wagner appealed, arguing the court punished her for harms caused by drugs she was not convicted of selling (i.e., more than the single pill), and improperly relied on conduct/medical purchases not related to the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is contrary to law because the court punished Wagner for harms beyond the offense of conviction | State: The court permissibly considered broader evidence of harm and other conduct at sentencing to determine appropriate punishment and apply R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors | Wagner: The court relied on conduct and harms (multiple addictions, other sales, later prescriptions) not charged or provable at trial and thus punished her for more than the individual offense | The appellate court affirmed: sentencing court may consider evidence beyond the conviction (including uncharged or dismissed conduct) and Wagner’s sentence—within statutory ranges—was not contrary to law or excessive |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review: modify/vacate sentence only if record clearly and convincingly does not support it)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of "clear and convincing" standard)
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (Ohio 2013) (rejecting the sentencing package doctrine in Ohio)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must sentence each separate offense, cited in sentencing doctrine discussion)