[Cite as State v. Moloney, 2016-Ohio-7822.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

HANCOCK COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 CASE NO. 5-16-10 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 

 v. 

RICHARD A. MOLONEY, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. 2015 CR 269 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: November 21, 2016 

 

APPEARANCES: 

Tim A. Dugan for Appellant 

Mark C. Miller for Appellee 

 
Case No. 5-16-10 

-2- 

WILLAMOWSKI, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Richard Moloney (“Moloney”) brings this appeal 

from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County sentencing 

him to community control which included a term of local incarceration. Moloney 

claims that the trial court’s judgment was unreasonable when it included a term of 

local incarceration that would likely result in the loss of employment. For the 

reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed. 

{¶2} On February 8, 2016, Moloney entered a plea of guilty to one count of 

possession of a controlled substance in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the 

fifth degree. Doc. 19, 50. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced 

appellant to five years of community control sanctions. Doc. 21, 28 As part of 

those sanctions, the trial court ordered Moloney to serve 30 days in the local jail. 

Doc. 28. The trial court deferred the time at the discretion of the probation officer. 

Id. Moloney brings his appeal from this judgment and raises the following 

assignment of error. 

The trial court’s terms and conditions for community control 

were unreasonable.

{¶3} The sole issue raised upon appeal is whether the trial court’s sentence, 

which included 30 days of local incarceration, was unreasonable. A trial court has 

broad discretion in determining which community control sanctions to impose. 

State v. Oates, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-12-19, 2013-Ohio-2609, ¶ 21, 993 N.E.2d 846. 
Case No. 5-16-10 

-3- 

However, those sanctions must be reasonably related to the statutory ends and not 

overly broad. Id. citing State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 550 N.E.2d 469 (1990). 

In Jones, the Supreme Court of Ohio relied on a “commonsense” 

understanding of the conditions of supervision to determine 

whether a condition is overbroad and held that “[c]ourts imposing 

conditions on probation are not expected to define with specificity 

the probationer's behavior in all possible circumstances. Rather, 

the conditions must be clear enough to notify the probationer of 

the conduct expected of him[.]” * * * “The goals of community 

control are ‘rehabilitation, administering justice, and ensuring 

good behavior.’ ” * * * “Thus, ‘courts should consider whether 

the condition (1) is reasonably related to rehabilitating the 

offender, (2) has some relationship to the crime of which the 

offender was convicted, and (3) relates to conduct which is 

criminal or reasonably related to future criminality and serves the 

statutory ends of probation.’ ” * * *. 

Oates, supra at ¶ 22. 

(A)(1) If in sentencing an offender for a felony the court is not 

required to impose a prison term * * * upon the offender, the 

court may directly impose a sentence that consists of one or more 

community control sanctions authorized pursuant to section 

2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code. * * * 

The duration of all community control sanctions imposed upon an 

offender under this division shall not exceed five years. * * * If the 

court sentences the offender to one or more nonresidential 

sanctions under section 2929.17 of the Revised Code, the court 

shall impose as a condition of the nonresidential sanctions that, 

during the period of the sanctions, the offender must abide by the 

law and must not leave the state without the permission of the 

court or the offender’s probation officer. The court may impose 

any other conditions of release under a community control 

sanction that the court considers appropriate * * * . 

R.C. 2929.15. One of the residential sanctions which is permitted by statute is that 

the trial court may require an offender to serve a term of up to six months in a 
Case No. 5-16-10 

-4- 

community-based correctional facility that serves the county or a local jail. R.C. 

2929.16(A), (B). 

{¶4} In this case, Moloney was sentenced to community control and as part 

of that sentence, the trial court ordered that Moloney serve 30 days in the Hancock 

County Justice Center. The trial court ordered this portion of the sentence due to 

the fact that while awaiting sentence for possession of cocaine, Moloney tested 

positive for cocaine and marijuana. The trial court found that while Moloney was 

amenable to community control, the jail time was the consequence for failing to 

abide by the terms of his bond and testing positive for drugs while awaiting 

sentencing. The sentence imposed by the trial court was within the community 

control sanctions allowed by statute. Although there may be a negative consequence 

to Moloney as a result of the sentence, that alone does not mean that the trial court 

abused its discretion. The trial court considered Moloney’s claim that the sentence 

would cause him to lose his employment and modified the sentence to address the 

issue. Tr. 55-57. Contrary to Moloney’s argument on appeal, the trial court did not 

refuse any accommodation. Rather, the trial court left the issue of when the time 

would be served to the discretion of the probation officer. This sentence was 

permitted by the law and there is no indication in the record that the trial court 

abused its discretion in imposing the sentence. Therefore, the assignment of error 

is overruled. 
Case No. 5-16-10 

-5- 

{¶5} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars 

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock 

County is affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed 

SHAW, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur. 

/hls