[Cite as State v. Smith, 2017-Ohio-1439.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

DANIELLE NICHOL SMITH 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 28102 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO 

CASE No. CR 2011 04 1079 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: April 19, 2017 

 

TEODOSIO, Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, Danielle Nichol Smith, appeals from an order by the Summit County 

Court of Common Pleas continuing her on conditional release. This Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} Ms. Smith was indicted on charges of attempted murder, aggravated arson, and 

arson. She entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and the trial court found her to be a 

mentally ill person subject to hospitalization. The court committed her to Northcoast Behavioral 

Healthcare System, but later modified the degree of commitment and committed her to 

Community Support Services. On December 16, 2015, the court found that Ms. Smith remained 

a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization, continued her on conditional release, and 

committed her to Community Support Services. 

{¶3} Ms. Smith now appeals from the trial court’s order continuing her on conditional 

release and raises one assignment of error for this Court’s review. 
2 

 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT MS. SMITH 

REMAINS A MENTALLY ILL PERSON SUBJECT TO HOSPITALIZATION 

FOLLOWING THE DECEMBER 16, 2015 HEARING. 

{¶4} In her first assignment of error, Ms. Smith argues that the trial court erred in 

finding her to be a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization and continuing her on 

conditional release. We disagree. 

{¶5} R.C. 2945.402 provides that hearings on continued commitment as described in 

R.C. 2945.401 apply to persons on conditional release. “A trial court’s decision regarding a 

defendant’s commitment pursuant to R.C. 2945.401 is reviewed on appeal for abuse of 

discretion.” State v. Ortello, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 14 MA 0071, 2016-Ohio-1441, ¶ 17, citing

State v. Jung, 132 Ohio App.3d 369, 372 (6th Dist.1999). “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ 

connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is 

unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 

(1983). 

{¶6} At the conditional release hearing, the trial court ultimately stated: 

The Court finds that you remain a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization, 

but I will concur with the opinion of your treatment team, that the least restrictive 

treatment alternative available consistent with public safety and your welfare 

remains conditional release. 

At no time during the hearing did Ms. Smith object to her continuation on conditional release or 

her commitment to Community Support Services. In fact, defense counsel stated, “I think that 

the folks that were supervising her think that she needs to continue this for a while. * * * And I 

think if the Court decides that she needs to continue that programming for a while, that’s in her 

best interest.” 
3 

 

{¶7} Consequently, Ms. Smith did not merely forfeit the issue by failing to object at the 

hearing, but she affirmatively waived any objection by agreeing that a continuation was in her 

best interest. See State v. Fitzgerald, 9th Dist. Summit No. 223072, 2007-Ohio-701, ¶ 11. 

{¶8} Ms. Smith’s first assignment of error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶9} Ms. Smith’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit 

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 Summit, 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. 

 

 THOMAS A. TEODOSIO 

 FOR THE COURT 
4 

 

HENSAL, P. J. 

SCHAFER, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

ALAN M. MEDVICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and RICHARD S. KASAY, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.