Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Kidwell-Tilton

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler

December 18, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KAITLYN ALEXANDRIA KIDWELL-TILTON, Defendant-Appellant.

         CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2015-04-0516

          Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee

          Michele Temmel, 6 South Second Street, Suite 305, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant

          OPINION

          RINGLAND, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Kaitlyn Alexandria Kidwell-Tilton, appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas sentencing her to consecutive prison terms. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.

         {¶ 2} In June 2015, a Butler County grand jury indicted appellant on one count of aggravated possession of drugs, a violation of R.C. 2925.11, and two counts of permitting drug abuse, violations of R.C. 2925.13. All three counts were fifth-degree felonies.

         {¶ 3} The charges stemmed from allegations that appellant allowed Daniel Lewis to use her residence for trafficking illegal narcotics. The same indictment charged Lewis with multiple counts of trafficking in and possession of narcotics. Police also alleged that they located a large quantity of MDMA on appellant during a traffic stop.

         {¶ 4} Appellant later requested that the court grant intervention in lieu of conviction ("ILC"), and the court granted ILC in October 2015. Appellant's ILC conditions included community control supervision, no drugs or alcohol, regular and random drug tests, and no contact with Lewis.

         {¶ 5} Approximately one month later, appellant violated her ILC conditions when she was charged with assault, disorderly conduct, and theft. In January 2016, the court revoked ILC and accepted appellant's previously entered pleas of guilty to the three counts in the indictment.

         {¶ 6} At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a five-year community control sanction and as requested by appellant, transferred her to the Substance Abuse Mentally Ill. ("SAMI") court. The conditions of appellant's community control sanction included supervision, classes and assessments, no drugs or alcohol, and no contact with Lewis. The court warned appellant that if she violated community control the court would sentence her to 12 months on each count of the indictment, and would order those counts served consecutively.

         {¶ 7} In April 2016, appellant appeared before the court after the probation department alleged that appellant changed residences without informing the department, failed to maintain contact with the department, was using drugs, failed to complete a SAMI jail sanction as ordered, and was again having contact with Lewis. The court found that appellant violated community control. Nonetheless, the court gave appellant yet another chance at redemption and ordered her to continue with the SAMI court programs.

         {¶ 8} In April 2017, the probation department notified the court that appellant tested positive for cocaine. As a result, in a May 2017 hearing, the court revoked appellant's community control sanction and imposed prison terms of 12 months on each of the three counts, with 260 days of credit. The court ordered each term to be served consecutively. Appellant appeals the trial court's sentencing decision, raising a single assignment of error for our review:

         {¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN IT IMPOSED MAXIMUM CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.

         {¶ 10} Appellant argues the trial court erred by sentencing her to consecutive prison terms, alleging that the court did not consider the proper statutory factors before imposing a prison sentence and that the record does not support the imposition of consecutive sentences. This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to determine whether the imposition of those sentences is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Julious, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-224, 2016-Ohio-4822, ¶ 8. Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence only if, by clear and convincing evidence, "the record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Harp, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-12-096, 2016-Ohio-4921, ΒΆ 7. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing as set ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.