[Cite as State v. Collins , 2012-Ohio-4969.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 2012-CA-2 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Ca se No. 11-CRB-1478 v. : : JAMES E. COLLINS : (Criminal Appeal from : ( Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : :

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 26th da y of October, 2012.

. . . . . . . . . . . RONALD LEWIS, Atty. Reg. #0061980, City of Xe nia Prosecutor’s Office, 101 North Detroit Street, Xenia, ohio 45385 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee CYNTHIA L. WESTWOOD, Atty. Reg. #0079435, 120 West Second Street, Suite 1504, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

. . . . . . . . . . . . . HALL, J. {¶ 1} James E. Collins was cited for aggravated menacing on August 11, 2011, for 2

 threatening his neighbor, Robert Brakeall. Collins believed that Brakeall had cut limbs from some of Collins’ trees and stacked them in an alley between their prope rties, without Collins’ permission. There was a history of animosity be tween the neighbors, including prior convictions of Collins for menacing and a prior protection order against Collins, but that protection order was no longer in effect at the time of this incident. {¶ 2} Collins pled no contest in the Xenia Municipal Court to the charge of aggravated menacing, a misdemea nor of the first degree. He was sentenced to 180 days, with credit for two days served. The remaining 178 days were suspended on the condition Collins would have no similar violations within six years and that he would su ccessfully complete probation. Collins was also fi ned $250 and was placed on probation for up to two years. Collins appealed. {¶ 3} On May 14, 2012, Collins’ appellate counsel f iled a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ( 1967), asserting the absence of any meritorious issues for our review. In the Anders brief, counsel did identify two potential issues, which relate to the tr ial court’s acceptance of Collins’ pl ea and the sentence it imposed. But counsel indicated that, in her vi ew, the trial court had complied with Crim.R. 11(D) in taking Collins’ plea and with R.C. 2929.22 in imposing the sentence. {¶ 4} We notified Collins that his counsel had filed an Anders brief and offered him time to file a pro se brief. He did not do so. {¶ 5} The first potential assignment of error raised by counsel questions whether the trial court complie d with Crim.R. 11(D) in accepting Collins’ plea. {¶ 6} Crim.R. 11(D) sets forth the procedure a trial judge must follow when accepting 3

 a plea involving a serious misdem eanor: “In misdemeanor cases i nvolving serious offenses the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or no contest, and shall not accept such plea without first addressing the defendant pers onally and informing the defendant of the effect of the pleas of guilty, no contest, and not guilty and determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily. * * *” When reviewing non-constituti onal requirements of Cr im.R. 11, an appellate court uses a substantial comp liance standard, meaning that “under the totality of the circumstances the defendant subj ectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving.” State v. Nero , 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990); State v. Knece , 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 00CA017, 2001 WL 803018, *3 (Mar. 12, 2001). {¶ 7} At the hearing, the trial court explained to Collins that, by entering his plea, he was waiving his right to a jury trial, and that he faced up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 dollars. The court also explained that aggravated menacing was “an enhanceable offense,” which meant that Collins could face more serious charges in the future with this conviction on his record. The c ourt explained that Collins’ no c ontest plea could not “be used against [him] in a future criminal or civil litigation arising out of these same facts.” The court also explained the effect of Collins’ stipulation to facts in the citation and police report, which would support his conviction. Collins indicated th at he understood the court’s explanations and that he wanted to enter a no contest plea. {¶ 8} The trial court personally addressed Collins, informed him of the effect of his plea, and determined that he understood the effect of the plea and wanted to enter it. Based on our review of the hearing transcript, we agree with counsel that this poten tial assignment of error does not have arguable merit.[Cite as State v. Collins , 2012-Ohio-4969.] {¶ 9} The second potential assignment of erro r raised by counsel relates to Collins’ sentence. A sentencing court is guided by the “overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing,” which are to protect the public from future crime by the offe nder and others and to punish the offender. R.C. 2929.21(A). “To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court [must] consider the impact of the offense upon the vic tim and the need for changing the offender’s behavior, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or the victim and the public.” R.C. 2929.21(A). The sentence imposed must be “reasonably calculated to achieve the two overridi ng purposes of misdemeanor sentencing * * *, commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offe nder’s conduct and its impact upon the victim, and consis tent with sentences imposed for similar offenses committed by similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.21(B). {¶ 10} A trial court is also required to cons ider the nature and circumstances of the offense, whether there was a history of persistent criminal activity or character that reveals a substantial risk of the offender committing another offense, and numerous other factors related to the offender and the offense. R.C. 2929.22(B). Ho wever, in misdemeanor sentencing, there is no requirement that a trial court specifically state its reasons for imposing the sentence that it does on the record. State v. Jackson , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20819, 2005-Ohio-4521, ¶ 16, citing State v. Harpster , 5th Dist. Ashland No. 04COA061, 2005-Ohio-1046. {¶ 11} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.24(A)(1) and R.C. 2929.28(A)(2)(i), a trial court may impose a sentence of up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 for a misdemeanor of the first degree. Collins’ sentence was within this ra nge. Although the trial court did not specify its reasons for imposing the sentence that it did, it was not required to do s o. Moreover, we have held that, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, Ohio courts presume that the trial court 5

 considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.21 and R.C. 2929.22 when the sentence is within the statutory range. State v. Hall , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24753, 2012-Ohio-1571, ¶ 18. In this case, Collins’ jail time wa s minimal, and the fine of $250 was si gnificantly less than the potential fine he faced. We see no basis to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence that it did. We agree with counsel that this potential assign ment of error does not have arguable merit. {¶ 12} Finally, we have indepe ndently reviewed the transcript and the record, as required by Anders . We have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. {¶ 13} The judgment of the Xenia Municipal Court is affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . DONOVAN and FROELICH, JJ., concur.

Copies mailed to: Ronald Lewis Cynthia L. Westwood James Collins Hon. Michael K. Murry