[Cite as State v. Hatfield, 2013-Ohio-3069.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF LORAIN ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellant 

 v. 

APRIL D. HATFIELD 

 Appellee 

C.A. No. 12CA010198 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO 

CASE No. 09CR079573 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: July 15, 2013 

 

WHITMORE, Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals from a judgment of the Lorain County Court 

of Common Pleas, dismissing criminal charges against Appellee, April Hatfield. This Court 

affirms. 

I 

{¶2} In December 2009, Hatfield was indicted on one count of robbery, in violation of 

R.C. 2911.02(A)(3), a felony of the third degree. After proceeding through discovery, Hatfield 

filed a motion for acceptance into the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas Diversion 

Program. The trial court ordered a preliminary investigation and later denied her motion. 

{¶3} Approximately one month later, the court ordered another diversion program 

investigation. Subsequently, the court held a hearing, at which Hatfield entered a guilty plea. 

Over the State’s objection, the court refused to enter a finding of guilt at that time, placed 
2 

 

Hatfield in the court’s diversion program, and stayed the case. A year later, the court found that 

Hatfield had successfully completed the diversion program and dismissed her case. 

{¶4} The State now appeals and raises two assignments of error for our review. For 

ease of analysis, we consolidate the assignments of error. 

II 

Assignment of Error Number One 

THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DISMISSED HATFIELD’S 

INDICTMENT UPON COMPLETION OF THE LORAIN COUNTY COURT 

OF COMMON PLEAS DIVERSION PROGRAM AS ONLY A PROSECUTING 

ATTORNEY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A PRE-TRIAL 

DIVERSION PROGRAM. 

Assignment of Error Number Two

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN STRUCTURING THE LORAIN COUNTY 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DIVERSION PROGRAM TO REMOVE ONE 

OF THE ESSENTIAL PARTIES TO THE CASE AND TO VIOLATE THE 

CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF POWERS. 

{¶5} In its first assignment of error, the State argues that the court created diversion 

program violates R.C. 2935.36 because pre-trial diversion programs may only be created by 

prosecuting attorneys. In its second assignment of error, the State argues that the court’s 

diversion program is unconstitutional because it impermissibly shifts the decision of whether to 

prosecute a case from the prosecutor to the court. 

{¶6} This case is one in a series of cases challenging the Lorain County Court of 

Common Pleas Diversion Program. This case, as with all of the others filed to date, contains a 

fatal flaw: the details of the court’s pretrial diversion program are nowhere in the record. As a 

reviewing court, this ties our hands. We are limited to reviewing materials contained within the 

appellate record. See State v. Garfield, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 09CA009741, 2011-Ohio-2606, ¶ 

59. App.R. 12(A)(1)(b). Because the State has failed to include in the record any details 
3 

 

regarding the court’s allegedly unlawful diversion program, we are unable to review the validity 

of the program. We are left with no choice but to affirm the trial court. Accordingly, the State’s 

assignments of error are overruled. 

III 

{¶7} The State’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Lorain 

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of 

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 BETH WHITMORE 

 FOR THE COURT 
4 

 

MOORE, P. J. 

HENSAL, J. 

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATASHA RUIZ GUERRIERI, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellant. 

JAMES INGALLS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.