[Cite as State v. Graszl , 2020-Ohio-1454.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES: : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, J. -vs- : : ROGER GRASZL, : Case No. 2019 CA 0045 : Defendant - Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016 CR 0524

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: April 10, 2020

APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

GARY BISHOP BYRON CORLEY Prosecuting Attorney 28 Park Avenue West; 1002 Richland County Mansfield, Ohio 44902

By: JOSEPH C. SNYDER Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 38 South Park Street Mansfield, Ohio 44902Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0045 2

Baldwin, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Roger Graszl appeals from the April 25, 201 9 Journal Entry of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-a ppellee is the State of

Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶2} On August 10, 2016, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted app ellant on two counts of tampering with records in violation of R.C. 2913. 42(A)(1), felonies of the third degree. At his arraignment on February 21, 2017, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. {¶3} Thereafter, on September 13, 2017, appellant withdrew his forme r not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty to both counts. As memorializ ed in a Sentencing Entry filed on November 2, 2017, appellant was sentenced to five year s of community control and ordered to pay $33,348.61 in restitution. {¶4} Thereafter, on December 13, 2018, probation violations were fil ed against appellant. On January 22, 2019, appellant admitted to some of t he violations, the trial court found him guilty and, pursuant to a Journal Entry filed o n January 24, 2019, the trial court set the matter for sentencing on April 24, 2019. At the s entencing hearing on April 24, 2019, appellant asked the trial court to continue the sente ncing for 90 days to give him more time to pay restitution. Appellant’s counsel noted tha t appellant had been arrested on a warrant out of Cleveland after being released in the case sub judice, and that appellant was released on bond in the Cleveland case on Ma rch 20, 2019, so “that would have been the first opportunity that he had to pay, March 20th of 2019.” TranscriptRichland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0045 3

at 4. Appellant’s counsel argued that appellant had not really been out of jail and had the opportunity to pay restitution. The trial court denied that re quest and sentenced appellant to twenty-four months on both counts, to run consecutively for a total of forty-eight months in prison. {¶5} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error on appea l: {¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT’S

MOTION TO CONTINUE THE SENTENCING HEARING.”

I {¶7} Appellant, in his sole assignment of error, argues that the tri al court erred when it denied his motion to continue the sentencing hearing. {¶8} “The grant or denial of a continuance is a matter which is entr usted to the broad, sound discretion of the trial judge.” State v. Unger , 67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67, 423 N.E.2d 1078 (1981). Therefore, an appellate court must not reve rse a trial court's decision to deny a motion for continuance unless it finds that the trial court abused its discretion.

Id .; State v. Wheat , 5th Dist. Licking App. No. 2003-CA-00057, 2004-Ohio-2088 The term “abuse of discretion” connotes more than an error of law or jud gment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶9} Appellant, at the sentencing hearing, argued that upon his rel ease from Cuyahoga County on March 20, 2019, he learned that heavy equipm ent that he owned had been stolen from a job site in the Kentucky/Cincinnati area and that the equipment had a value in the range of $50,000.00 to $60,000.00. He filed a police report and was arrested by his Richland County probation officer that day for traveling to theRichland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0045 4

Kentucky/Cincinnati area. He noted that from March 21, 2019 unt il the day of sentencing, appellant had been in jail and had not had the opportunity to p ay restitution. {¶10} However, at the sentencing hearing, appellant’s probation offic er informed the court that appellant had been told to report to him or anot her probation officer as soon as he was released from the Cuyahoga County jail, but did not d o so and went to Kentucky without permission. However, appellant had told his attorney th at his probation officer had given him permission to travel out of state. According to appel lant’s probation officer, appellant reported when he wanted to and was not amenable to su pervision. Appellant still owed over $32,000.00 in restitution and the Cleveland cha rges (passing bad checks) were still pending. The trial c ourt, in sentencing appellant, f ound that he was not amenable to supervision and liked to do things his way “and not necessar ily the legal or right way.” Transcript at 11. As noted by appellee, the trial court “had e very reason to believe that if he continued sentencing that Appellant would continue to shirk his responsibilities and would not make any meaningful progress on paying his restitutio n...The Court had already given Appellant a three-month window between his admiss ions [on January 22, 2019] and his sentencing hearing [on April 24, 2019] but that d id not cause Appellant to do much to come into compliance with his community control.” {¶11} Based on the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion in the t rial court's denial of appellant's request for a continuance. The trial cour t’s decision was not arbitrary,

unconscionable or unreasonable. {¶12} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is, therefore overruled.Richland County, Case No. 2019 CA 0045 5

{¶13} Accordingly, the judgment of the Richland County Court of Commo n Pleas

is affirmed.

By: Baldwin, J. Wise, John, P.J. and Wise, Earle, J. concur.

CRB/dr[Cite as State v. Graszl , 2020-Ohio-1454.]