BAD JAIL BEHAVIOR Comes Back to Haunt Defendant at Sentencing! Judge Culotta Court

[00:00:00] Ms. Carner: I take full responsibility, accountability for my actions, and I'm ready to be rehabilitated. And if I can't go to treatment, when I do go to prison, I enter some cosmetology programs, something, so I can try to get my kids back and try to build a better life, my future. [00:00:23] Speaker 2: State of Ohio v. Pamela Karner, case number 25, CR000131. We are here for purposes of a sentencing hearing. The defendant is present in court with defense counsel, Bill Watson. We were previously in court on September 26, 2026, where the defendant pled guilty to count one, receiving stolen property of felony of the fourth degree in violation of revised code, section 2913.51A. Count two, possession of a fentanyl-related compound of felony of the fifth degree in violation of revised code, section 2925.11A. and count three, possession of cocaine, a felony of the fifth degree in violation of revised code, section 2925.11A. The court found the defendant guilty of all three counts, an order of pre-sentence investigation and report, a drug and alcohol evaluation, and a victim impact statement. The state has had the opportunity to review those reports and was prepared to proceed with sentencing today. [00:01:13] Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Watson, any reason not to go forward with sentencing? No, Your Honor. [00:01:17] Speaker 4: Anything you'd like to say on behalf of your client? Thank you, Your Honor. Madam Mayor, please, in court, you know, I'm going to be brief. I know the court's well aware of Ms. Carner. She's obviously got a lot of problems. She's a drug addict, Your Honor. This particular case is an older case from last year. She failed to show up at the pretrial, and unfortunately, while she was out on bond, she was in active addiction, and she kept using, and she picked up other cases in other jurisdictions. And currently, I know the court's well aware, but currently, there's a lot of warrants for her. Felony warrants on a common police court out of Cuyahoga County, as well as some various misdemeanor warrants in jurisdictions. Your Honor, you know, Ms. Carner knows that she's dug herself in a real deep hole. I mean, nothing technically is super serious. She's not a violent person. She's not an evil person, but she's a drug addict, and she gets herself into problems. And she knows it. And I've talked to her several times since she's been picked up, and, you know, she doesn't want to live her life like this anymore. She wants to clear all of this up. She wants to take care of, obviously, she's here. She wants to take care of this. She wants to get into Cuyahoga County. She wants to clear up everything she has over there. And hopefully, use her time wisely to sober up. My office, we didn't look into any type of a treatment program for her, Your Honor. Initially, Ms. Carner did indicate to me that she was interested in just serving some time. She did kind of go back and forth on that, but I know the court's aware that, ultimately, she did not cooperate. She did not interview for NEOCAP. You know, I'm going to respectfully ask the court to take into consideration, even though she does have a lot of pending cases, technically, conviction-wise, she does not have much of a record. I'm going to ask the court to take that into consideration, and I'm asking the court to consider on a lower-end sentence, a 6- to 12-month sentence, Your Honor. Thank you. [00:03:29] Speaker 3: Thank you. Ms. Carner, you have the right to address the court before your sentence. You can say anything you'd like. Is there anything you want to say? Stand up. [00:03:37] Ms. Carner: Yes, Your Honor. I take full responsibility, accountability for my actions, and I'm ready to be rehabilitated. And if I can't go to treatment, when I do go to prison, I enter some cosmetology programs, something, so I can try to get my kids back and try to build a better life for my future. So thank you for this opportunity. Thank you. [00:04:06] Speaker 3: Thank you. Mr. Watson, anything else? Nothing further, Your Honor. Ms. Hronick, for the state of Ohio. [00:04:15] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. Despite the defendant, despite the defendant having no, or a very minimal actual record of convictions, the defendant did violate her bond by failing to appear for a pre-trial. In that time, she picked up three new cases. She does have several warrants out, as has been already discussed. She also, while in the jail, has had several incidents and been a problem in the jail as well, the state is going to recommend a prison sentence. She is facing a prison sentence of three and a half years here, based on all of her conduct over the last, basically since 20, since this case happened in 2025, the state believes that prison is appropriate and is going to ask for a prison sentence. Thank you. [00:05:00] Speaker 3: Thank you. This court did review the pre-sentence report and investigation, the drug and alcohol evaluation, and considered the facts and circumstances of the offenses involved in nature of these offenses. And considered everything that's been said here in court, this is all considered in light of the purposes and principles of felony sentencing, which are set forth in 29, 29, 11. As for all the factors in 29, 29, 12, factors which indicate the offense is more or less serious, the court finds the defendant's relationship with the victim in regards to the count one, the receiving of the car, facilitated the offense. Nothing makes it less serious. [00:05:44] Speaker ?: Nothing makes it less serious. [00:05:45] Speaker 3: It's for recidivism factors. She committed this offense while she was on a bond in an old case, and she failed to appear for her of Cleveland Heights. That warrant's still pending. Plus one out of Cleveland Heights. I guess all three prior convictions, there's warrants pending for her. Not all three prior cases she has, there's warrants pending for her because she's failed to appear. We're also fined that she failed to appear for a court hearing in this case, which is a violation of her bond. Why don't you go to court? If all these cases, all the cases you had, you've never gone to court. You just don't go. And if you're getting in trouble again, people are going to see that. And you're not going to get a bond because you're representing, you're going to show up. But what a bond says, albeit all future court dates, and you don't go to court. [00:06:34] Ms. Carner: It's running the streets. [00:06:37] Speaker 3: Okay, fair answer. You're going to need to get that addressed. I mean, in your PSI, you said you didn't think you needed help with that, I believe. Is that what it was? Something along those lines? [00:06:49] Ms. Carner: The original paperwork. [00:06:50] Speaker 3: The original paperwork, that's what it was when she filled out the paperwork. Right. She did change her tune, I understand that. Right, so she failed to appear in court here. Violated her bond. Behavior in jail has been poor. A lot of disciplinary incidents at all indicate recidivism is more likely. There's not much of a record. No prior felonies. I don't even know if those other incidents that are listed are actual convictions because she failed to appear for all of them. Since the disorderly and a contempt and a misdemeanor obstructing, it's all she had prior to that. Now, going back to the recidivism, I will note that once she failed to appear for her hearing here, she's been arrested on three, or at least charged with, I should say, three new felonies that are, have warrants issued in all three of those cases. Separate cases, separate incidents. But again, under less likely to commit crime in the future, I don't believe there's not even convictions. She's got a lot of entries. She's led a law-abiding life for a significant number of years. Under 29-29-13-B-1, again, the court will note that the defendant failed to appear for a court hearing here. A warrant was issued. She was out for over a year or about exactly a year. So since she violated her bond, there's no presumption for community control. Community control is not consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. Prison is in this case. She refused to meet with the NEOCAP folks, which would be helpful for her, or she refused to even be interviewed by them. Prison is consistent. Therefore, it's a sentence to this court. Then, in count one, defendants serve a term in prison of 12 months. Counts two and three, she served a prison term of nine months. They all run concurrent for a prison term of 12 months in prison with 102 days of credit. Need to advise you upon your release, you'd be placed on post-release control for up to two years. If you aren't, you're violating any of those conditions, the parole authority could send you back to prison as punishment for violating their rules for another six months, the maximum being 50% of the term I just imposed, any additional prison term imposed. For violating post-release control is being imposed a part of the sentence at this time. Court disapproves a defendant's placement in a program of shock incarceration, intensive prison program, transfer to transitional control. Do not release bond or put anything in the entry about bond since bond was forfeited. [00:09:24] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:09:26] Speaker 3: I don't know if I said it, but she should pay all costs. Anything else for the record at this time? Ms. Heronick? [00:09:33] Speaker 2: No, Your Honor. Thank you. [00:09:34] Speaker 3: Mr. Watson? Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you. [00:09:36] Ms. Carner: All rise.