The Akron Legal News

Court approves prison term for woman involved in break-in spree

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Legal News Reporter
Published: October 21, 2013

A 12th District Court of Appeals panel recently affirmed an eight-year prison sentence for a woman involved in a multi-state break-in spree.

The three-judge appellate panel ruled this week that the trial court considered all of the required factors when sentencing Natasha Money for eight counts of burglary.

According to the facts of the case, Money and her accomplice Jason LaFountain were involved in a crime spree that spread throughout Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio.

The state alleged that Money would drive LaFountain to homes where he would break in and steal personal property.

The duo would then exchange that property for narcotics.

Police were able to apprehend LaFountain after eight homes were broken into in Clermont County in Ohio.

After learning LaFountain was in custody, Money turned herself into local police.

The state charged Money with eight counts of burglary as second-degree felonies.

It later reduced the charges to third-degree felonies in exchange for Money’s guilty plea to each count.

The Clermont County Court of Common Pleas sentenced Money to a one-year prison term on each of the eight counts and ordered that the terms fun consecutively for an aggregate term of eight years in prison.

She then appealed her sentence to the 12th District Court of Appeals.

“Money argues in her sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in ordering her to serve an eight-year sentence,” 12th District Judge Robin Piper wrote for the court.

The district judges held that an appellate court may only take action with regard to a sentence if it finds the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings or if the sentence is contrary to law, meaning the trial court did not make the proper considerations or issued a sentence outside of the permissible statutory range.

Upon review, the judges found that the one-year sentences for each third-degree felony were within the statutory range outlined by R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b).

They further determined that the trial court clearly stated that it had considered the purposes and principals of sentencing as outlined by the Ohio Revised Code.

“The trial court reiterated the facts contained in Money’s pre-sentence investigation report, including the seriousness of Money’s crimes, and that Money’s driving LaFountain to the various residences throughout the county permitted him to facilitate each burglary,” Judge Piper stated.

The trial court also recounted how deeply the victims had been affected by the crimes, and “how each suffered serious financial and mental harm from the criminal activity of LaFountain and Money,” said Judge Piper.

“Having considered the purposes and principals of sentencing, and sentencing Money within the statutory range for her offenses, the trial court’s sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law,” stated Judge Piper.

Next, the appellate judges considered the consecutive nature of Money’s sentences.

They maintained that a trial court must make specific findings before ordering consecutive sentences, including the protection of the public, the seriousness of the crimes and the danger the offender poses to the public.

During Money’s sentencing hearing, the common pleas court stated that consecutive sentences were essential to protecting the public and were not disproportionate to the serious nature of Money’s offenses.

“In addition to these two findings, the trial court found that Money committed multiple offenses as part of a course of conduct and that the harm caused by each of the multiple offenses was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed adequately reflected the seriousness of her conduct,” Judge Piper wrote.

The judges found that the findings fulfilled all statutory requirements and were properly supported by the record.

Having found no error with the trial court’s sentencing, they overruled Money’s assignment of error and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

Presiding Judge Robert Hendrickson and Judge Stephen Powell joined Judge Piper to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Money, 2013-Ohio-4535.

[Back]