Court Opinion

ID: 9910966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 21:11:54.506002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:19.407191
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Fromknecht, 2023-Ohio-4604.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               ASHTABULA COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                   CASE NOS. 2023-A-0041
CITY OF CONNEAUT,                                          2023-A-0043

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,             Criminal Appeals from the
                                                 Conneaut Municipal Court
        - vs -

CHRISTOPHER FROMKNECHT,                          Trial Court Nos. 2023 CRB 00134 A
                                                                  2023 CRB 00134 B
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                             OPINION

                                   Decided: December 18, 2023
                                       Judgment: Affirmed

John D. Lewis, Law Director, City of Conneaut, 294 Main Street, Conneaut, OH 44030
(For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Margaret Brunarski, Ashtabula County Public Defender, and Michael J. Ledenko,
Assistant Public Defender, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For
Defendant-Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

        {¶1}     Defendant-appellant, Christopher Fromknecht, appeals his sentences for

Aggravated Menacing, Telecommunications Harassment, and a Probation Violation. For

the following reason, Fromknecht’s sentences are affirmed.

        {¶2}     On June 14, 2023, Fromknecht pled guilty to Aggravated Menacing, a

misdemeanor of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) (Conneaut Mun. No.

23CRB00134-A), and Telecommunications Harassment, a misdemeanor of the first

degree in violation of R.C. 2917.21(A)(1) (Conneaut Mun. No. 23CRB00135-C), and
admitted a Probation Violation (Conneaut Mun. No. 23CRB00136). The municipal court

sentenced him to the maximum of 180 days in jail for Aggravated Menacing; the maximum

of 180 days in jail for Telecommunications Harassment; and for the Probation Violation a

jail sentence of 120 days and a suspended sentence of 180 days. The sentences were

ordered to be served consecutively and, for Conneaut Mun. Nos. 23CRB00134-A and

23CRB00135-C, were stayed pending appeal.

      {¶3}   Fromknecht filed timely Notices of Appeal.      On appeal, he raises the

following assignment of error: “The trial court clearly and convincingly committed

prejudicial error that deprived Christopher Fromknecht of due process of law as

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article

One, Section Ten of the Ohio Constitution and violated Revised Code 2953.08 by

sentencing him to maximum and consecutive jail sentences.”

      {¶4}   Contrary to the assertions in the assignment of error, Fromknecht’s

convictions are misdemeanor convictions to which R.C. 2953.08 and case law relevant

to felony sentencing does not apply.

      {¶5}   “A court that sentences an offender for a misdemeanor * * * shall be guided

by the overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing.”         R.C. 2929.21(A).    “The

overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing are to protect the public from future

crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.” Id. “A sentence imposed

for a misdemeanor * * * shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the two overriding

purposes of misdemeanor sentencing * * *, commensurate with and not demeaning to the

seriousness of the offender’s conduct * * *, and consistent with sentences imposed for

similar offenses committed by similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.21(B). “In determining the

                                           2

Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043
appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, the court shall consider * * * [t]he nature and

circumstances of the offense” and “[w]hether the circumstances regarding the offender

and the offense * * * 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.” R.C. 2929.22(B)(1)(a) and (b).

       {¶6}   “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 criminal offense.” R.C. 2929.22(C). “Although R.C. 2929.22(C),

identifies the circumstances under which a maximum sentence is permissible, it does not

require the trial court to make any explicit findings.” State v. Scott, 2023-Ohio-476, 208

N.E.3d 1038, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.). “[W]hen the misdemeanor offender’s sentence is within the

statutory limits and there is no affirmative indication on the record that the trial court failed

to consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22, the reviewing court is to presume the

trial court considered the applicable statutory factors when it imposed the sentence.”

State v. Corradetti, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-079, 2022-Ohio-1279, ¶ 44; Scott at ¶ 10.

       {¶7}   “A jail term or sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor shall be served

consecutively to any other prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment when the

trial court specifies that it is to be served consecutively * * *, except that the aggregate

term to be served shall not exceed eighteen months.” R.C. 2929.41(B)(1). “The trial court

is not required to make consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) prior to

ordering consecutive sentences for jail terms imposed for misdemeanor offenses.” State

                                               3

Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043
v. Henson, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2020-07-037, 2021-Ohio-38, ¶ 17. “The trial court

need only ‘specify’ that the jail terms being imposed were to be served consecutively.”

Id.

       {¶8}    “Misdemeanor sentencing lies within the discretion of the trial court and will

not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Hogya, 11th Dist. Lake Nos.

2022-L-058 and 2022-L-059, 2023-Ohio-342, ¶ 14; State v. Hill, 70 Ohio St.3d 25, 29,

635 N.E.2d 1248 (1994) (“as a general rule, an appellate court will not review a trial court’s

exercise of discretion in sentencing when the sentence is authorized by statute and is

within the statutory limits”).

       {¶9}    In the present case, the municipal court imposed the maximum sentence

for first-degree misdemeanors within the statutory limits and specified that the sentences

be served consecutively. R.C. 2929.24(A)(1) (“[f]or a misdemeanor of the first degree,

not more than one hundred eighty days”). There is no affirmative indication that the court

failed to abide by the appropriate sentencing considerations.

       {¶10} Fromknecht also contends that his sentence was the product of vindictive

sentencing. His reliance on State v. Rahab, 150 Ohio St.3d 152, 2017-Ohio-1401, 80

N.E.3d 431, is misplaced inasmuch as Rahab involved vindictiveness in resentencing

after a successful appeal. Nonetheless, “[w]hen imposing sentence, courts must be

faithful to the law, must not be swayed by public clamor, media attention, fear of criticism,

or partisan interest, and must be mindful of the obligation to treat litigants and lawyers

with dignity and courtesy.” State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289, 2008-Ohio-2338, 888

N.E.2d 1073, ¶ 25.

                                              4

Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043
      {¶11} Fromknecht cites the following exchange from the sentencing hearing as

demonstrative of vindictiveness:

             The Court: What’s amazing to me, Mr. Fromknecht, is that you find
             a new job, you become gainfully employed - - apparently, your
             employer, Premix, is happy with your performance there - -

             Fromknecht: Yes, sir.

             The Court: - - and in the midst of all of it, you’re on probation, and
             you just neglect to follow through with the responsibilities that were
             imposed on you through probation; and then you not only neglect,
             you just defy a court order that has been previously imposed that you
             have no contact with Shawna Popka.

             Fromknecht: I was told by Shawna - -

             The Court:    Shut up.

             Fromknecht: All right, whatever.

             The Court:    I gave you an opportunity to speak.

             Fromknecht: (Unintelligible) Shawna Popka there was no contact
             order.

             The Court:    Shut up.

             Fromknecht: All right.

             The Court:    You’re going to listen to me now.

             Fromknecht: Yep.

             The Court: It - - it defies logic that you continue to defy a court
             order, and you shake your head as if you’ve done nothing wrong.

             Fromknecht: I ain’t saying I haven’t done nothing wrong, Your
             Honor.

             The Court:    Okay.

             Fromknecht: I’m saying (unintelligible).

             The Court:    I don’t want to hear from you.
                                           5

Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043
             Fromknecht: Okay.

             The Court: The point of it is, you’ve been in this court I don’t know
             how many times - -

             Fromknecht: Mm-hmm.

             The Court: - - since I’ve been on the Bench. You’re a frequent
             flyer, and here we are again defying court orders, especially failing
             to get treatment and moving to what is another life with another job
             assuming everything else is going to be just fine.

      {¶12} We do not find the foregoing to be demonstrative of vindictiveness but,

rather, the municipal court’s impatience with Fromknecht’s interruptions.

      {¶13} The sole assignment of error is without merit.

      {¶14} For the foregoing reasons, Fromknecht’s sentences are affirmed. Costs to

be taxed against the appellant.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

                                            6

Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043