State v. Ribita

[Cite as State v. Ribita, 2012-Ohio-6080.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
: John W. Wise, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Julie A. Edwards, J.
:
-vs- : Case No. 2012 CA 00112
:
:
KEIRSTON RIBITA : OPINION
Defendant-Appellant
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from Stark County
Court of Common Pleas Case No.
2011-CR-1788
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 17, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN D. FERRERO APRIL R. BIBLE
Prosecuting Attorney Stark County Public Defender’s Office
Stark County, Ohio 200 W. Tuscarawas Street, N.W.
Suite – 200
BY: RENEE M. WATSON Canton, Ohio 44702
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Appellate Section
110 Central Plaza, South
Suite – 510
Canton, Ohio 44702
[Cite as State v. Ribita, 2012-Ohio-6080.]
Edwards, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Keirston Ribita, appeals a judgment of the Stark County
Common Pleas Court convicting her of domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)) upon a
plea of guilty and sentencing her to 36 months incarceration. Appellee is the State of
Ohio.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On January 9, 2012, appellant was indicted by the Stark County grand jury
on one count of felony domestic violence. According to the bill of particulars, appellant
drug her 12-year-old daughter by her hair and hit her, leaving a welt on her arm and a
bruise on her leg.
{¶3} The case proceeded to jury trial. Midway through trial, appellant entered a
plea of guilty to the charge.
{¶4} After meeting with counsel and appellant’s caseworker, the court placed
terms and conditions on appellant’s bond pending her next court appearance. Appellant
was to go to the crisis center, and if they did not keep her for the evening, she was to
appear at pretrial release the next morning where she would be taken into custody and
transported to the jail, awaiting a bed at the community correction facility.
{¶5} The crisis center did not keep appellant. The next morning, she and her
caseworker appeared at the building where the pretrial release office is located.
However, appellant did not go inside the building. Instead, she took a handful of pills
and ran. The caseworker called for an ambulance and appellant spent two days in the
psychiatric ward of Aultman Hospital.
Stark County App. Case No. 2012-CA-00112 3
{¶6} On May 7, 2012, the court found that appellant had violated the terms and
conditions of her bond and revoked her bond. He sentenced her to 36 months
incarceration. She assigns a single error on appeal:
{¶7} “THE IMPOSITION OF THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE BY THE TRIAL
COURT WAS CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY CONTRARY TO LAW AND AN ABUSE
OF DISCRETION.”
{¶8} The Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008–
Ohio–4912, 896 N.E.2d 124 set forth a two step process for examining felony
sentences. The first step is to “examine the sentencing court's compliance with all
applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the
sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Kalish at ¶ 4. If this first step “is
satisfied,” the second step requires the trial court's decision be “reviewed under an
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id.{¶9} In sentencing appellant, the trial court noted that appellant violated the
court’s order by not going inside once she appeared with her caseworker at pretrial
release, and instead took action that required her to be hospitalized. Appellant argues
that she did not willfully violate the terms of her bond because she made herself
available to appear at pretrial release as ordered by the court, and everyone was aware
that she was potentially unstable and suicidal.
{¶10} However, appellant did not comply with the court’s order. Rather than
appearing at pretrial release, she came to the building, took a handful of pills and ran
off. Nothing in the record supports her claim that she suffered from mental health
Stark County App. Case No. 2012-CA-00112 4
issues that prevented her from complying with the court’s order. The court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing her to the maximum sentence.
{¶11} The assignment of error is overruled.
{¶12} The judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Edwards, J.
Farmer, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
JUDGES
JAE/r1114
[Cite as State v. Ribita, 2012-Ohio-6080.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
KEIRSTON RIBITA :
:
Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 2012-CA-00112
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the
judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to
appellant.
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
JUDGES