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. Swetnam

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking

December 10, 2019

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LISA SWETNAM Defendant-Appellant

          Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 17-CR-00340

         JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

          WILLIAM C. HAYES LICKING COUNTY PROSECUTOR DARREN M. BURGESS

          For Defendant-Appellant: NICHOLAS FAGNANO

          JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

          OPINION

          DELANEY, J.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Lisa Swetnam appeals the January 3, 2019 judgment entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶2} The underlying facts are not necessary for the disposition of this appeal. On April 20, 2017, Defendant-Appellant Lisa Swetnam was indicted by the Licking County Grand Jury on four counts: (1) Possession of Cocaine, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(4)(a); (2) Aggravated Possession of Drugs (Fentanyl), a fifth-degree felony in violation of 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a); (3) Aggravated Possession of Drugs (Carfentanyl), a fifth-degree felony in violation of 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a); and (4) Aggravated Possession of Drugs (Methamphetamine), a fifth-degree felony in violation of 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a). The indictment also contained a forfeiture specification (U.S. Currency) pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A) and 2981.02(A)(2).

         {¶3} Swetnam entered a plea of not guilty to all charges and the matter was set for trial.

         {¶4} On August 24, 2017, Swetnam appeared before the trial court and withdrew her plea of not guilty to the charges. The trial court accepted Swetnam's plea, found her guilty on all counts, and proceeded to sentencing. The parties jointly recommended an agreed sentence of community control sanctions. The trial court considered the record, statements of the parties, and the pre-sentence investigation report in conjunction with the purposes and principles of sentencing set for in R.C. 2929.11, balanced by the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. The trial court found a prison sentence was not mandatory and not consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. The trial court placed Swetnam on community control for a period of two years with the following sanctions:

The Defendant is placed on the following community control sanctions for a period of two (2) years. If the Defendant violates any of the conditions of community control sanctions, the Court may do any of the following: (1) impose a longer term under community control sanctions; (2) impose more restrictive community control sanctions; or (3) impose the reserved prison term for the offense for which the Defendant was convicted. * * *
B. Nonresidential Sanctions (R.C. 2929.17)
The Defendant shall be placed under the supervision of the Licking County Adult Court Services Department and shall comply with all general and specific conditions of supervision as set forth below. ...

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.