State v. BakerState v. Baker
Rendered on the 24th day of February, 2012.
GRADY, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant, Steffen Baker, appeals from his conviction and sentence for carrying concealed weapons.
{¶ 2} In the early morning hоurs of May 2, 2010, Defendant went with his nephew and a friend to the Juicy Night Club on Shoup Mill Road in Harrison Township. When
{¶ 3} Defendant was indicted on one count of carrying concealed weapons,
{¶ 4} Defendant timely appealed to this court from his conviсtion and sentence. He challenges only the trial court‘s decision denying his request for ILC.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 5} “THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT‘S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY DENYING HIS MOTION FOR INTERVENTION IN LIEU OF
{¶ 6} Defendant argues that the trial court erred by concluding that he was ineligible for ILC because, contrary to the trial court‘s findings, Defendant meets all of the statutory eligibility requirements for ILC in
{¶ 7}
If an offender is charged with a criminal offense, including but not limited to a violation of section 2913.02, 2913.03, 2913.11, 2913.21, 2913.31, or 2919.21 of the Revised Code, and the court has reason to believe that drug or alcohol usage by the offender was а factor leading to the criminal offense with which the offender is charged, * * * the court may accept, prior to the entry of a guilty plea, the offendеr‘s request for intervention in lieu of conviction. * * * The court may reject an offender‘s request without a hearing. If the court elects to consider an offendеr‘s request, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the offender is eligible under this section for intervention in lieu of conviction and shall stay all criminal proceedings pending the outcome of the hearing. If the court schedules a hearing, the court shall order an assessment of the offender for the purpose of determining the offender‘s eligibility for intervention in lieu of conviction and recommending an appropriate intervention plan.
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9} When Defendant‘s offense was committed in 2010, pаragraph (6) of
The offender‘s drug or alcohol usage was a factor leading to the criminal offense with which the offender is charged, intervention in lieu of conviction would not demean the seriousness of the offense, and intervention would substantially reduce thе likelihood of any future criminal activity.
{¶ 10} Defendant argues that because the police officers who arrested him reported that he was visibly intoxicated, he had a baggie of marijuana in his pants pocket, he admitted that he had been smoking marijuana and drinking at a friend‘s home earlier that evening, and he has a history of marijuana and alcohol use, his drug or alcohol use was a factor leading to his commission of the carrying concealed weapons оffense. Defendant also told the investigator who prepared the ILC report that he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time of the offense. However, Defendant told that same investigator “that he decided to carry a firearm because Juicy Night Club is in a bad neighborhood.” Based upon that admission by Defendant, the trial court found that Defendant failed to link his decision to carry the firearm to his drug and alcohol use. Rather, the decision to carry the fireаrm seems to have been motivated by concerns over personal safety and self-protection. The trial court stated that in order to find Defendant еligible for ILC, the court must find that drug or alcohol use was a factor leading to Defendant‘s criminal behavior in carrying the concealed firearm, and that on thеse facts the court could not make that finding.
{¶ 11} The court additionally found that ILC would demean the seriousness of the offense in this case because Defendаnt‘s aggressive conduct toward the security officers and
{¶ 12} After reviewing this record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that Defendant failed to establish the eligibility requirement in
{¶ 13} Defendant further argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying him ILC. Even if an offender does satisfy all of the eligibility requirements for ILC, the trial court has discretion to determine whether the particular offender is а good candidate for ILC. The decision whether to grant a motion for ILC lies within the trial court‘s sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Lindberg, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2005CA59, 2006-Ohio-1429.
{¶ 14} “Abuse of discretion” has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87, 482 N.E.2d 1248, 1252 (1985). It is to be expected that mоst instances of abuse of discretion will result in decisions that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or arbitrary.
{¶ 15} A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision. It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a contrary result. AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment, Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990).
{¶ 16} The trial court did not summarily deny Defendant‘s motion for ILC without a hearing, but rather еlected to consider that request and held a hearing to determine whether Defendant meets all of the eligibility requirements in
{¶ 17} Defendant‘s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
FROELICH, J., And HALL, J., concur.