Court Opinion

ID: 9882869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:21:14.691215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:54.509709
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Takacs, 2023-Ohio-3302.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,                                    CASE NO. 2023-A-0021
CITY OF CONNEAUT,

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

DAVID TAKACS,                                     Trial Court No. 2023 CRB 00039

                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                             OPINION

                                    Decided: September 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, David Takacs, appeals his sentence for illegal use or

possession of drug paraphernalia.            For the following reasons, Takacs’ sentence is

affirmed.

        {¶2}     On April 3, 2023, Takacs entered a plea of “guilty” in Conneaut Municipal

Court to illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia, a fourth-degree misdemeanor in

violation of R.C. 2925.14(C)(1). For a fourth degree misdemeanor, the court may impose

a definite jail term of “not more than thirty days.” R.C. 2929.24(A)(4). In exchange for
Takacs’ plea, the State recommended “probation, whatever fine the Court deems

appropriate, and the court costs of the case.”

      {¶3}   At sentencing, the municipal court engaged in the following colloquy with

Takacs:

             The Court: Mr. Takacs, you have quite a criminal history. When
             did you get out of prison?

             Mr. Takacs: About a year and a half ago, * * * right around the 4th
             of July I believe it was.

             The Court: Well, your last conviction which you just got out of
             prison for was Attempted Illegal Conveyance of Drugs of Abuse onto
             a correctional facility, and that appears to be what you just were
             serving prison time on. But OVI in 2021; but, I mean, probation
             violations out the gazoo; * * * drug related offenses. * * * This case
             could have easily been charged with an enhancement to an M1 with
             all of the drug-related offenses you have. * * * I don’t know. You
             don’t get it. 30 days in jail. * * * I’m giving him the maximum
             sentence. I mean, * * * your record is horrendous; absolutely,
             absolutely horrendous. And, yet, you still have a meth pipe.

The court ordered Takacs to pay court costs but did not impose a fine and subsequently

stayed the sentence pending appeal.

      {¶4}   On April 10, 2023, Takacs filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, he raises

the following assignment of error: “Did the trial court err in imposing a maximum sentence

rather than adopt the recommendation for community control sanctions.”

      {¶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
                                            2

Case No. 2023-A-0021
seriousness of the offender’s conduct * * *, and consistent with sentences imposed for

similar offenses committed by similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.21(B).

       {¶6}   “In determining the 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). “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).

       {¶7}   “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.

       {¶8}   On appeal, Takacs argues the municipal court’s “maximum sentence is

contrary to the purposes and principles of misdemeanor sentencing.” Brief of Defendant-

Appellant at 3. He notes that possessing drug paraphernalia is not a violent offense and

that he pled to the lowest level of misdemeanor offense. Despite previous convictions,

Takacs argues he “should be given credit for accepting responsibility for his actions in

committing the offense” and the “significant amount of time out of custody without

committing new offenses before this incident.”        Finally, Takacs argues that, “[b]y

sentencing [him] to maximum imprisonment in this case, the trial court prevented [him]

                                             3

Case No. 2023-A-0021
from engaging in treatment for his substance use disorder and prevented [him] from

entering the workforce.” Brief of Defendant-Appellant at 2-3.

       {¶9}   We find no abuse of discretion in the imposition of the maximum jail term

inasmuch as Takacs’ conduct and response to prior sanctions for offenses demonstrate

the need for such a term as a deterrent to future offenses.              We recognize that

“rehabilitating the offender” is a valid consideration for the sentencing court to achieve the

purposes of misdemeanor sentencing (although not itself one of the overriding purposes

of misdemeanor sentencing). R.C. 2929.21(A). In the present case, however, Takacs

was scheduled to begin his IOP (intensive outpatient program) at Ravenwood on the day

of sentencing and was supposed to begin work during the week of sentencing. Takacs’

incipient efforts at rehabilitating himself do not render the court’s determination that his

criminal past merits the maximum jail term an abuse of discretion.

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

       {¶11} For the foregoing reasons, Takacs’ sentence for illegal use or possession

of drug paraphernalia is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the appellant.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

                                              4

Case No. 2023-A-0021