[Cite as State v. Wright, 2014-Ohio-775.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO ) CASE NOS. 12 MA 143 

) 12 MA 144 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE ) 

) 

VS. ) OPINION 

) 

LAMONT WRIGHT ) 

) 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ) 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeals from the Youngstown 

Municipal Court of Mahoning County, 

Ohio 

Case Nos. 10CRB1172; 12CRB599 

JUDGMENT: 12 MA 143: Reversed; Sentence 

Vacated; Charge Dismissed. 

12 MA 144: Affirmed. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee: Atty. Dana Lantz 

Youngstown City Prosecutor 

Atty. Kathleen Thompson 

Assistant City Prosecutor 

26 S. Phelps Street 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

For Defendant-Appellant: Atty. Katherine Rudzik 

26 Market St., Suite 904 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

Dated: February 28, 2014
[Cite as State v. Wright, 2014-Ohio-775.]

WAITE, J. 

{¶1} This matter involves the consolidated appeal of two criminal cases. In 

Appeal No. 12 MA 143, Appellant Lamont Wright appeals his contempt conviction in 

Youngstown Municipal Court (“Muni. Court”). The contempt charge arose from an 

alleged violation of the terms of probation in his sentence for menacing. Part of his 

sentence included the requirement to register for electronically monitored house 

arrest (“EMHA”) at the Community Corrections Association (“CCA”), and to complete 

30 days of day-reporting jail time. Appellant argues on appeal that there was no 

proof that he intended to defy the court when he failed to register for EMHA on 

November 2, 2010, because he was already on EMHA from an earlier case. 

Appellant also contends that he completed his day-reporting requirements, and that 

the state provided no evidence to the contrary. Appellant is correct that the state was 

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in contempt of prior court 

orders, and that the record does not support the conviction. The judgment of the trial 

court is reversed and the contempt citation dismissed. Appellant also filed Appeal 

No. 12 MA 144, but has not addressed this appeal in any way. Hence, he has 

abandoned the prosecution of this appeal. As a result, we affirm the conviction and 

sentence in that case. 

History of the Cases on Appeal

{¶2} These consolidated appeals involve two separate proceedings in 

municipal court and two separate appeals. The first appeal is Appeal No. 12 MA 143. 

The following facts are relevant to this appeal. On November 2, 2010, in Muni. Court 

Case No. 10CRB1172, Appellant was convicted of one count of menacing, R.C. 
-2-

2903.22(A), a fourth degree misdemeanor. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail, 

which was suspended in lieu of 30 days of day-reporting through a program available 

at the Mahoning County Sheriff’s Department. The judgment entry does not state 

when the day-reporting was to be fulfilled, or how much time Appellant had to 

complete the day-reporting requirements. Appellant was also required to register for 

EMHA at CCA as a condition of his ongoing bail bond. 

{¶3} On December 13, 2010, the probation department of Muni. Court 

notified the trial court that Appellant had not registered for EMHA and had not served 

any days of day-reporting jail time. A capias order was issued for Appellant’s arrest 

on December 14, 2010. The capias was served on March 26, 2012, apparently in 

conjunction with Appellant’s arrest on new charges, and the probation department 

immediately filed a notification of possible contempt of court. 

{¶4} On April 9, 2012, the court conducted an arraignment and probable 

cause hearing on the contempt charge. Appellant was not represented by counsel at 

the hearing, and did not stipulate to probable cause. The court, after reviewing the 

record, determined that there was probable cause for contempt because Appellant 

had not completed any day-reporting and had not registered for EMHA. The court 

appointed counsel and set a show cause hearing for May 21, 2012. At the show 

cause hearing, Appellant’s counsel asked for the hearing to be continued so that 

witnesses could be secured in his defense. (5/21/12 Tr., p. 3.) The court denied the 

continuance and asked counsel to show cause why his client should not be held in 

contempt. 
-3-

{¶5} The state's evidence consisted of the court file. Appellant stated that 

he was already on house arrest when he was ordered on November 2, 2010, to 

report to CCA to register for EMHA. Appellant testified that he could not register for 

EMHA on November 2nd because he was already on EMHA at the time. The court 

did not accept this argument and found him guilty of contempt. The court sentenced 

him to 30 days in jail. Appellant’s counsel then objected that the state presented no 

evidence, that counsel was never put on notice of the evidence the court relied on to 

find him in contempt, and that an additional hearing was required so that he could 

rebut whatever evidence the court was referencing from the file. The court decided 

to stay the sentence and allow Appellant to present further evidence on July 31, 

2012. The conviction and sentence announced from the bench on May 21, 2012, 

were not journalized or set forth in a judgment entry. 

{¶6} The hearing on July 31, 2012 was intended to be another show cause 

hearing. The record indicates that the witnesses were never identified or sworn in. 

The witnesses are referred to as “unidentified speaker.” Two witnesses were 

supposedly subpoenaed for the hearing (Jessica Brown from CCA, and someone 

identified as Deputy Oliver), but it is not clear from the record if any of the transcript 

testimony includes these witnesses. There are statements in the record indicating 

that Appellant was on EMHA from a prior case, Muni. Court Case No. 08TRD2562, 

on November 2, 2010, which was the date that he was sentenced in Case No. 

10CRB1172. Another speaker stated that there was no record of Case No. 

10CRB172: 
-4-

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We don't have any record for that case 

except for the current case file which started back on April of 2012. 

THE COURT: You don't have records for back in December, 2010? 

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, we do not, Your Honor. 

(7/31/12 Tr., p. 7.) 

{¶7} Another unidentified speaker noted that Appellant had served all of the 

day-reporting requirements in Case. No. 10CRB1172. (7/31/12 Tr., p. 4.) Appellant’s 

counsel argued that because all the day-reporting requirements had been fulfilled 

and the fines had been paid, and because Appellant had served all the terms of the 

original sentence, there was no basis for a contempt conviction. The court indicated 

that the fact that Appellant had now “caught up” with the terms of his sentence did 

not excuse his violations, and the court did not believe that Appellant was given two 

years to fulfill his day-reporting requirements. The court removed the stay of the 

contempt sentence and ordered Appellant to serve 30 days in jail forthwith. The 

notice of appeal was filed on August 10, 2012. 

{¶8} The above matter was consolidated with Appeal No. 12 MA 144. This 

appeal arises out of a conviction for falsification and obstructing official business filed 

on July 31, 2012. Appellant filed an appeal of this judgment entry on August 10, 

2012. We consolidated the two appeals on July 18, 2013. Appellant filed a single 

brief to be used in both appeals. Appellant has not filed any assignments of error 

relating to this second appeal. The issues are never addressed in any way. It 

appears that Appellant has abandoned the prosecution of Appeal No. 12 MA 144. 
-5-

The conviction and sentence in that case are therefore affirmed. The only issues that 

remain before us concern Appeal No. 12 MA 143. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND DEFENDANT 

LAMONT WRIGHT IN CONTEMPT WITHOUT AN EVIDENCIARY [sic] 

HEARING AS THE CONTEMPT WAS INDIRECT. 

{¶9} Appellant argues that, in a proceeding for indirect criminal contempt of 

court, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the contemnor intended 

to defy the court, citing Midland Steel Products Co. v. U.A.W. Local 486, 61 Ohio 

St.3d 121, 127, 573 N.E.2d 98 (1991). Appellant also argues that there was never a 

proper evidentiary hearing for his charge of indirect contempt of court, and that there 

is no record of the state presenting any evidence, much less evidence that meets the 

standard of beyond-a-reasonable-doubt. Appellant contends that the evidence 

actually shows that he was already on EMHA at the time he was ordered to register 

for house arrest. He argues that as he was already registered, he should not have 

been held in contempt for failing to register a second time. Appellant also argues 

that he fulfilled the terms of his day-reporting and there is no evidence to the 

contrary. Appellant’s argument is correct. The state must prove the elements of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the state never actually presented any 

evidence in this contempt case, and because the record does not support the 

conviction, the contempt citation is dismissed. 
-6-

{¶10} “The trial court may hold a party in contempt where that party fails to 

comply with a lawful judgment or court order.” Leasure v. Leasure, 8th Dist. No. 

72415, 1998 WL 108137, at *5 (March 12, 1998); R.C. 2705.02(A). Contempt 

proceedings are sui generis, having aspects of civil, criminal and equity proceedings, 

but not truly being equated with any of them. Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Dist. Council 

51, 35 Ohio St.2d 197, 201–202, 299 N.E.2d 686 (1973). Contempt is typically 

classified as civil or criminal, based on the purpose of the sanctions imposed. State 

v. Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201, 205, 400 N.E.2d 386 (1980). If the sanctions are 

intended to coerce the contemnor to comply with lawful orders of the court, the 

contempt proceeding is civil. Id. at 204-205. On the other hand, if the punishment is 

punitive in nature and is designed to vindicate the court’s authority, the contempt 

proceeding is criminal. Id. “[C]ivil contempts are characterized as violations against 

the party for whose benefit the order was made, whereas criminal contempts are 

most often described as offenses against the dignity or process of the court.” State 

ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551, 555, 740 N.E.2d 265 (2001). This appeal 

involves criminal contempt, because a definite jail term was imposed with no 

opportunity to purge the contempt. 

{¶11} Courts distinguish not only between civil and criminal contempt, but 

also between indirect and direct contempt. Direct contempt occurs in the presence of 

the court. Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14, 15, 520 

N.E.2d 1362 (1988). Direct contempt, whether civil or criminal, may be summarily 

punished without the need for a hearing. State v. Local Union 5760, United 
-7-

Steelworkers of Am., 172 Ohio St. 75, 79, 173 N.E.2d 331 (1961). Indirect contempt 

occurs outside the presence of the court. In re Lands, 146 Ohio St. 589, 595, 67 

N.E.2d 433 (1946). Prior to imposing a punishment for indirect contempt, the 

contemnor must be afforded certain procedural safeguards, including the filing of a 

written charge, entry of the matter on the court’s journal, an adversary hearing, and 

an opportunity for legal representation. R.C. 2705.03; Elias v. Stein, 120 Ohio 

App.3d 432, 434, 698 N.E.2d 74 (8th Dist.1997). 

{¶12} Criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Brown 

v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250, 416 N.E.2d 610 (1980), syllabus. If the 

contempt involves violation of a court order, intent to violate the order is an essential 

element of the criminal contempt and must be proven. In re Carroll, 28 Ohio App.3d 

6, 10, 501 N.E.2d 1204 (8th Dist.1985). “[I]ntent may be inferred from the 

circumstances surrounding the crime.” State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240, 754 

N.E.2d 796 (2001), syllabus. 

{¶13} Because the state never made a record in this case that could support 

a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all the elements of the contempt 

charge, the conviction cannot stand. The probable cause hearing cannot be used to 

show proof beyond a reasonable doubt, because probable cause is a much less 

rigorous standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. George, 45 Ohio 

St.3d 325, 329, 544 N.E.2d 640 (1989). “Probable cause is less than the beyond-areasonable-doubt standard required for a conviction and less than the amount of 

evidence necessary to make a prima facie showing of guilt.” State v. Wilcox, 177 
-8-

Ohio App.3d 609, 2008-Ohio-3856, 895 N.E.2d 597, ¶12 (2d Dist.). Appellant also 

testified on the record that he was already registered for EMHA on November 2, 

2010, and thus, could not have intended to be in contempt for failure to register. The 

record does indicate that Appellant fulfilled his day-reporting requirements, and the 

state never presented evidence as to how long a time period Appellant had in which 

to fulfill these requirements. The original judgment entry does not set forth a specific 

term for Appellant to fulfill the requirement. These are reasonable defenses that are 

supported by the record, such as it is. It is apparent, however, that the state’s case is 

not supported by the existing record. Therefore, Appellant could not have been 

convicted of contempt, at least based on the state of this record. Appellant’s sole 

assignment of error in Appeal No. 12 MA 143 is sustained. The contempt conviction 

and sentence are reversed and the charge dismissed in Appeal No. 12 MA 143. 

Again, as Appellant has abandoned any claims of error in Appeal No. 12 MA 144, the 

conviction and sentence in that case are affirmed. 

Donofrio, J., concurs. 

DeGenaro, P.J., concurs.