With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ¶ 4. While R.C. 2951.041 does not create a legal right to intervention in lieu of conviction, Rice has a right to fair process, and prejudicial error results when the trial court engrafts a stricter eligibility requirement into the statute than is expressly included in the statutory scheme. See State v. Schmidt, 149 Ohio App.3d 89, 2002-Ohio-3923, 776 N.E.2d 113 (reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court acted arbitrarily by finding that Schmidt was not eligible for intervention in lieu of conviction based upon a dismissed driving-under-the-influence charge, and noting, “ [W]e do not believe that the trial court can create its own criteria for an individual even to be eligible for ILC.”) See also State v. Fullenkamp (Oct. 26, 2001), Darke App. No. CA 1543, 2001 WL 1295372 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 21} R.C. 2951.041(B) provides that an

A: holding that the trial court on remand erred when it adopted a new theory of damages contrary to the order of the court of appeals
B: holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss
C: holding the trial court erred to fullenkamps prejudice when it arbitrarily narrowed the eligibility criterion of this salutary statute by requiring drug or alcohol dependency or the danger of becoming dependent as a predicate condition for eligibility
D: holding that an insureds compliance with a condition precedent is not tested by the presence or absence of prejudice to the insurer but only by whether the condition has been fulfilled by the insured under all the circumstances
C.