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. Foreman

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

May 17, 2018

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
CHERITA FOREMAN DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-16-605158-A

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Anthony Thomas Miranda Adam M. Chaloupka Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Mark Stanton Cuyahoga County Public Defender Jeffrey Gamso Assistant Public Defender

          BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Kilbane, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE.

         {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, the state of Ohio, brings this appeal challenging the trial court's judgment granting defendant-appellee Cherita Foreman's motion for intervention in lieu of conviction ("ILC"). Specifically, the state argues that the trial court erred by granting Foreman's motion because the indictment alleged that the victims of her offenses included an elderly person or disabled adult and a child under the age of 13. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         {¶2} In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-16-605158-A, Foreman was charged following a traffic stop on March 27, 2016, in Westlake, Ohio. On April 25, 2016, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury returned a seven-count indictment charging Foreman with (1) identity fraud, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2913.49(B)(2), with a furthermore clause alleging that the victim of the offense "is an elderly person or disabled adult"; (2) identity fraud, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2913.49(B)(2); (3) endangering children, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2912.22(A), with a furthermore clause alleging that Foreman was previously convicted of endangering children in January 2008 in Toledo Municipal Court; (4) drug trafficking, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), with a juvenile specification and a forfeiture specification; (5) possessing criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A), with a furthermore clause alleging that Foreman had money with purpose to use it in the commission of a felony and a forfeiture specification; and (6) - (7) forgery, first-degree misdemeanors in violation of R.C. 2913.31(B)(1). Foreman pled not guilty to the indictment during her arraignment on May 9, 2016.

         {¶3} On February 23, 2017, the trial court held a pretrial hearing. Following the hearing, the trial court referred Foreman to the court psychiatric clinic for an examination "in accordance with the provisions of the Ohio Revised Code, 2951.041 drug dependency/intervention in lieu of conviction (drugs/alcohol)[.]"

         {¶4} On March 27, 2017, the trial court held a change of plea hearing. The prosecutor acknowledged that the probation department "authorized or approved" Foreman for ILC. (Tr. 3.) However, the prosecutor objected to placement in ILC, arguing that Foreman was ineligible for ILC because one of the victims of her offenses was over the age of 65 and another victim was under the age of 13. The state advised the trial court that the victim of the fraud counts was approximately 80 years old and that Foreman had a juvenile in her car at the time of the traffic stop that was under the age of 13.

         {¶5} Foreman pled guilty to all seven counts as charged in the indictment. The trial court held Foreman's guilty pleas in abeyance and placed Foreman in the ILC program.

         {¶6} On April 28, 2017, the state filed the instant appeal challenging the trial court's judgment. The state assigns one error for review:

I. The trial court erred in granting intervention in lieu where [Foreman] was not eligible for intervention for all counts in the indictment.

         II. ...


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.