The Akron Legal News

Login | March 28, 2024

Felon who used mom's credit card without permission will return to prison

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News

Published: September 30, 2014

A three-judge appellate panel in the 9th District Court of Appeals recently decided that the Medina County Court of Common Pleas properly sentenced a defendant on charges of receiving stolen property.

The case stemmed from Jamie Maynard’s unauthorized use of a credit card that belonged to her mother and stepfather.

Maynard admitted to law enforcement that her theft stemmed from a drug dependency and, though she initially pleaded not guilty, Maynard decided to enter a plea of no contest.

After requesting a presentence investigation report, the Medina court sentenced Maynard to 10 months in prison.

Maynard challenged the penalty on appeal, where she argued that the lower court failed to consider the required statutory sentencing factors and it erred by ordering her to serve a sentence that was not mandatory.

“Although Maynard does not contest that the trial court considered the sentencing factors, she emphasizes that the trial court did not amply account for the fact that she admitted to the illegal use of the credit card, cooperated with authorities and signed a financial responsibility form with CapitalOne causing the approximately $2,000 in charges to be transferred from her mother and stepfather’s account to her own,” wrote Judge Donna Carr for the court of appeals.

The appellate panel noted that, according to Ohio’s Supreme Court, trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the applicable statutory range.

A charge of receiving stolen property, a felony of the fifth degree, carries a possible sentence of six to 12 months imprisonment.

“While Maynard notes that a prison sentence was not mandatory, she does not dispute that her sentence falls within the applicable statutory range,” wrote Judge Carr. “Instead, she argues that the trial court failed to give adequate consideration to R.C. 2929.11, R.C. 2929.12 and R.C. 2929.13.”

The appellate panel consulted the trial court’s judgment entry and found that it considered the record, oral arguments made by both parties, the victim impact statement and the principles and purposes of felony sentencing and recidivism factors enumerated in R.C. 2929.11 and .12.

The trial court also found that Maynard was not amenable to community control sanctions.

She had already been convicted of multiple felonies as an adult and served prison time.

Maynard had also previously missed court-mandated scheduled drug tests and when asked why, she laughed and told lab personnel, “Yeah, I wasn’t doing all that.”

When asked when she would be able to pay the $100 she owed for drug testing fees, she replied, “Good luck with that.”

She also remarked that she did not want to “deal” with the trial judge anymore and she preferred to deal with the probation department “because they are pushovers.”

“While Maynard admitted to the criminal conduct and took the steps necessary to ensure that her mother and stepfather were not financially responsible for her transgressions, there were numerous additional considerations lending credence to the conclusion that prison time was appropriate,” wrote Judge Carr.

“It follows that Maynard’s assertion that the trial court failed to give adequate consideration to the relevant statutory factors is without support in the record and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 10-month term of incarceration.”

Presiding Judge Eve Belfance and Judge Jennifer Hensal concurred.

The case is cited State v. Maynard, 2014-Ohio-3978.

Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]