[Cite as State v. Hoffman, 2018-Ohio-2992.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF MEDINA ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

NANCY R. HOFFMAN 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 17CA0067-M 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

WADSWORTH MUNICIPAL COURT 

COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO 

CASE No. 17CRB00093-A 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: July 30, 2018 

 

CARR, Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Nancy Hoffman appeals from the judgment of the 

Wadsworth Municipal Court. This Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} In February 2017, police responded to a loud party complaint at Hoffman’s 

residence. Upon arrival, police overhead someone talking about getting another beer and 

observed a sign in the home which read “Liquor before beer and you’re in the clear.” Alcohol 

was found in the kitchen and the garage contained marijuana and scales. Hoffman was 

ultimately charged with permitting underage consumption in violation of R.C. 4301.69(B). 

{¶3} Hoffman pleaded guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to sentencing. 

The trial court sentenced Hoffman to 90 days in jail with 83 days suspended, 1 year of probation, 

a $350 fine, and the imposition of costs. As conditions of probation, Hoffman was to complete 

24 hours of community service and submit to 60 days of house arrest. Hoffman moved to stay 
2 

 

the execution of her sentence, which the trial court granted. Hoffman has appealed, raising two 

assignments of error for our review. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND/OR FAILED TO 

COMPLY WITH []R.C. 2929.22(B) AND/OR IN FAILING TO CONSIDER 

THE APPROPRIATENESS OF IMPOSING A COMMUNITY CONTROL 

SANCTION THE TRIAL COURT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, COMMITTED 

REVERS[I]BLE ERROR WHICH SHALL BE REVIEWED DE NOVO. 

{¶4} Hoffman argues in her first assignment of error that the trial court failed to 

comply with R.C. 2929.22 in sentencing her. Specifically, Hoffman asserts that the trial court 

failed to comply with R.C. 2929.22(A), (B), and (C). Hoffman has not argued that she was 

sentenced outside the range authorized by the sentencing statutes. 

{¶5} “A trial court generally has discretion in misdemeanor sentencing.” State v. Senz, 

9th Dist. Medina No. 17CA0001-M, 2018-Ohio-628, ¶ 34, quoting State v. Woody, 9th Dist. 

Lorain No. 14CA010679, 2016-Ohio-631, ¶ 15. “Unless a sentence is contrary to law, we 

review challenges to misdemeanor sentencing for an abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotations 

and citations omitted.) Senz at ¶ 34. An abuse of discretion indicates that the trial court was 

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in its ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 

217, 219 (1983). 

{¶6} R.C. 2929.22 provides in relevant part: 

(A) Unless a mandatory jail term is required to be imposed by division (G) of 

section 1547.99, division (B) of section 4510.14, division (G) of section 4511.19 

of the Revised Code, or any other provision of the Revised Code a court that 

imposes a sentence under this chapter upon an offender for a misdemeanor or 

minor misdemeanor has discretion to determine the most effective way to achieve 

the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in section 2929.21 of the 

Revised Code. 
3 

 

Unless a specific sanction is required to be imposed or is precluded from being 

imposed by the section setting forth an offense or the penalty for an offense or by 

any provision of sections 2929.23 to 2929.28 of the Revised Code, a court that 

imposes a sentence upon an offender for a misdemeanor may impose on the 

offender any sanction or combination of sanctions under sections 2929.24 to 

2929.28 of the Revised Code. The court shall not impose a sentence that imposes 

an unnecessary burden on local government resources.

(B) 

(1) In determining the appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, the court shall 

consider all of the following factors: 

(a) The nature and circumstances of the offense or offenses; 

(b) Whether the circumstances regarding the offender and the offense or offenses 

indicate that the offender has a history of persistent criminal activity and that the 

offender’s character and condition reveal a substantial risk that the offender will 

commit another offense; 

(c) Whether the circumstances regarding the offender and the offense or offenses 

indicate that the offender’s history, character, and condition reveal a substantial 

risk that the offender will be a danger to others and that the offender’s conduct 

has been characterized by a pattern of repetitive, compulsive, or aggressive 

behavior with heedless indifference to the consequences; 

(d) Whether the victim’s youth, age, disability, or other factor made the victim 

particularly vulnerable to the offense or made the impact of the offense more 

serious; 

(e) Whether the offender is likely to commit future crimes in general, in addition 

to the circumstances described in divisions (B)(1)(b) and (c) of this section; 

(f) Whether the offender has an emotional, mental, or physical condition that is 

traceable to the offender’s service in the armed forces of the United States and 

that was a contributing factor in the offender’s commission of the offense or 

offenses; 

(g) The offender’s military service record. 

(2) In determining the appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, in addition to 

complying with division (B)(1) of this section, the court may consider any other 

factors that are relevant to achieving the purposes and principles of sentencing set 

forth in section 2929.21 of the Revised Code. 

(C) Before imposing a jail term as a sentence for a misdemeanor, a court shall 

consider the appropriateness of imposing a community control sanction or a 

combination of community control sanctions under sections 2929.25, 2929.26, 
4 

 

2929.27, and 2929.28 of the Revised Code. A court may impose the longest jail 

term authorized under section 2929.24 of the Revised Code only upon offenders 

who commit the worst forms of the offense or upon offenders whose conduct and 

response to prior sanctions for prior offenses demonstrate that the imposition of 

the longest jail term is necessary to deter the offender from committing a future 

crime. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶7} Hoffman argues that the trial court failed to consider the statutory factors in R.C. 

2929.22(B)(1), that the trial court failed to comply with the statutory directive in R.C. 

2929.22(A) related to a trial court’s duty to not impose a sentence that imposes an unnecessary 

burden on local resources, and that the trial court failed to consider the appropriateness of 

imposing a community control sanction before imposing a jail term, as required by R.C. 

2929.22(C). 

{¶8} “It is well-recognized that a trial court abuses its discretion when, in imposing a 

sentence for a misdemeanor, it fails to consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22. 

Nonetheless, [a] trial court is presumed to have considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22 

absent an affirmative showing to the contrary. The burden of demonstrating this error falls to the 

appellant.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) State v. Goudy, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 

16AP0020, 2017-Ohio-7306, ¶ 16. 

{¶9} Here, the trial court did not specifically reference R.C. 2929.22 at the sentencing 

hearing. Nonetheless, Hoffman has not affirmatively demonstrated that the trial court failed to 

consider the statutory criteria contained in R.C. 2929.22. See id. The trial court was aware of 

the circumstances of the violation, as well as Hoffman’s history, as it ordered a presentence 

investigation report (“PSI”), which it referenced at the hearing. 

{¶10} The sentencing transcript establishes that one of Hoffman’s daughters had a party 

at Hoffman’s residence and police were called to the house following a loud party complaint. 
5 

 

Upon arrival, police overheard someone talking about getting another beer and observed a sign 

in the house which read “Liquor before beer and you’re in the clear[.]” Alcohol was found in the 

kitchen and marijuana and scales were found in the garage. The trial court noted that it was the 

police’s position that “it would be impossible for [Hoffman] not to know what was going on in 

that house.” Nonetheless, Hoffman continued to maintain that she was just not paying attention. 

The trial court expressed particular concern about the scale of the party, the substances involved, 

and Hoffman’s claimed lack of knowledge under circumstances where she should have known 

what was happening. 

{¶11} In light of the record before us, which includes the PSI that this Court has 

independently reviewed, Hoffman has not demonstrated that the trial court failed to consider the 

statutory criteria in R.C. 2929.22 or that the trial court’s sentence imposed an undue burden on 

local resources. See R.C. 2929.22(A). Further, given Hoffman’s argument, she has not 

demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her. Hoffman’s first 

assignment of error is overruled. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN CONSIDERING 

FACTORS OR STATEMENTS MADE TO A THIRD PARTY OUT OF COURT 

IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT NOT PER []R.C. 2929.22(B). 

{¶12} Hoffman argues in her second assignment of error that the trial court based her 

sentence on an inappropriate factor. Hoffman argues that the trial court sentenced her to jail 

because of a warning that the trial court believed that it gave her older daughter when the older 

daughter was in high school. 

{¶13} During the sentencing hearing the trial court asked Hoffman if her daughters went 

to Wadsworth High School. Hoffman indicated that her older daughter had gone there. The trial 
6 

 

court informed Hoffman that the trial judge goes to the high school to tell the students what 

happens to students who engage in underage drinking. Thus, the trial court pointed out that the 

older daughter would have heard that talk. The trial court indicated it had a strict approach to 

these situations. Hoffman then pointed out that the older daughter was not home when the 

alcohol was brought in the house and again tried to explain why Hoffman did not notice what 

was going on in the house. Thereafter, the trial court imposed a sentence, which included a jail 

sentence. Hoffman’s counsel then asked the court to reconsider the jail sentence, pointing out 

that this was a first offense. The trial court responded that the sentence was “for letting kids 

have alcohol and marijuana in their house and not knowing it. This Court does not look at that 

kindly.” The trial court went on to state that it found the circumstances “aggravated and not 

permissible[.]” The trial court indicated that “[p]arents have to be the parent and be responsible. 

And the alcohol is bad enough but the marijuana is out of control. * * * And they need to know 

that there’s consequences for actions and these are the consequences. This is serious. We don’t 

look at these laws lightly. It’s good for these girls to know that this is the consequence[][.]” 

{¶14} Accordingly, we conclude that Hoffman has misinterpreted the trial court’s 

comments. It does not appear from the record that the trial court sentenced Hoffman to jail 

because of a warning the trial court believed it had given Hoffman’s daughter. Instead, it 

appears that the trial court brought up the trial court’s appearance at the high school to emphasize 

how serious the trial court took the issue of underage drinking. Thereafter, the record is clear 

that the trial court was imposing a jail sentence because of Hoffman’s own behavior, which the 

trial court found concerning. After reviewing the sentencing transcript, we cannot say that the 

trial court held the warning that the trial court may have given to Hoffman’s daughter against 
7 

 

Hoffman in sentencing Hoffman. As such is the sole basis of Hoffman’s argument, her second 

assignment of error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶15} Hoffman’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Wadsworth 

Municipal Court is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

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

Municipal Court, County of Medina, 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. 

 

 DONNA J. CARR 

 FOR THE COURT 

SCHAFER, P. J. 

CALLAHAN, J. 

CONCUR. 
8 

 

APPEARANCES: 

TONY DALAYANIS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

THOMAS J. MORRIS, Assistant Director of Law, for Appellee.