Court Opinion

ID: 9370479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 19:08:40.022751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.651334
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Hogya, 2023-Ohio-342.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,                                     CASE NOS. 2022-L-058
CITY OF MENTOR-ON-THE-LAKE,                                  2022-L-059

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

HOPE CRYSTAL HOGYA,                                Trial Court Nos. 2021 CRB 01251 A
                                                                    2021 CRB 01251 B
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                            OPINION

                                      Decided: February 6, 2023
                                         Judgment: Affirmed

Joseph M. Gurley, Mentor-On-The-Lake Prosecutor, 240 East Main Street, Painesville,
OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Eric D. Hall, P.O. Box 232, Medina, OH 44258 (For Defendant-Appellant).

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Hope Hogya, appeals from the Mentor Municipal Court arguing

that the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of misdemeanor

sentencing. We affirm.

        {¶2}     Appellant was charged with one count of Violating a Protection Order, a

misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.27(A)(1).

        {¶3}     On September 15, 2021, appellant pled guilty to Violating a Protection

Order. On February 9, 2022, appellant was sentenced to 180 days in jail with credit for

six days served and two-years’ probation. Appellant moved the court to modify her
sentence. The trial court granted that motion and released appellant to the New

Beginnings Residential Treatment Facility on March 9, 2022.

       {¶4}   Appellant did not comply with the terms of her probation and was charged

with a probation violation. On May 25, 2022, the trial court sentenced appellant to 146

days in jail – the remainder of her jail sentence. In addition, the court sentenced appellant

to a 30-day jail term on a contempt of court charge with 24 days suspended and jail time

credit for six days served.

       {¶5}   Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on both the Contempt and Violating

a Protection Order convictions. Appellate counsel was appointed to represent her.

                              Assignment of Error and Analysis

       {¶6}   Appellant’s sole assignment of error states:

       {¶7}   “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED APPELLANT

WITHOUT       CONSIDERING          THE   PURPOSES        AND     PRINCIPALS         [sic]   OF

MISDEMEANOR SENTNENCING CONTAINED IN R.C. 292921 [sic] AND THE

FACOTRS LISTED IN 2929.22.”

       {¶8}   No transcript was filed in this matter. Therefore, this Court’s review of

appellant’s sentence is entirely based upon the trial court’s sentencing entries.

       {¶9}   It is incumbent upon the appellant “to ensure that the record or whatever

parts thereof are necessary for the determination of the appeal are filed with the appellate

court.” Aurora v. Belinger, 11th Dist. Nos. 2007-P-0041, 2007-P-0042, 180 Ohio App.3d

178, 2008-Ohio-6772, 904 N.E.2d 916, ¶ 30. “The duty to provide a transcript for appellate

reviews falls upon the appellant because [the appellant] has the burden of showing error

by reference to the record.” Id. at ¶ 31, citing Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio

                                             2

Case Nos. 2022-L-058, 2022-L-059
St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980). “If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a

finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the weight of the

evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to

the findings or conclusion.” App.R. 9(B)(4). Where a transcript is unavailable, the

appellant is still obligated to provide a complete record pursuant to App.R. 9(C), (D), or

(E). Belinger, at ¶ 31.

       {¶10} “Where portions of the transcript necessary for the resolution of assigned

errors are omitted from the record, an appellate court has nothing to pass upon.” Warren

v. Clay, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2003-T-0134, 2004-Ohio-4386, ¶ 7. In such cases, a

reviewing court “has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s

proceedings.” Id.

       {¶11} Appellant argues that the trial court failed to consider or reference the

purposes and principles of misdemeanor sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.21(A) and the

misdemeanor sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22(B).

       {¶12} R.C. 2929.21(A) provides that a court imposing a misdemeanor sentence

“shall be guided by the overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing * * * to protect

the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.” The

sentencing court “shall consider the impact of the offense upon the victim 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).

       {¶13} R.C. 2929.22(B) provides:

       (B)(1) In determining the appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor,
       the court shall consider all of the following factors:

       (a) The nature and circumstances of the offense or offenses;
                                             3

Case Nos. 2022-L-058, 2022-L-059
      (b) Whether the circumstances regarding the offender and the
      offense or offenses 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;

      (c) Whether the circumstances regarding the offender and the
      offense or offenses indicate that the offender's history, character,
      and condition reveal a substantial risk that the offender will be a
      danger to others and that the offender's conduct has been
      characterized by a pattern of repetitive, compulsive, or aggressive
      behavior with heedless indifference to the consequences;
      (d) Whether the victim's youth, age, disability, or other factor made
      the victim particularly vulnerable to the offense or made the impact
      of the offense more serious;

      (e) Whether the offender is likely to commit future crimes in general,
      in addition to the circumstances described in divisions (B)(1)(b) and
      (c) of this section;

      (f) Whether the offender has an emotional, mental, or physical
      condition that is traceable to the offender's service in the armed
      forces of the United States and that was a contributing factor in the
      offender's commission of the offense or offenses;

      (g) The offender's military service record.

      (2) In determining the appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, in
      addition to complying with division (B)(1) of this section, the court
      may consider any other factors that are relevant to achieving the
      purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in section 2929.21 of
      the Revised Code.

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

not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. City of Conneaut v. Peaspanen, 11th Dist.

Ashtabula No. 2004-A-0053, 2005-Ohio-4658, ¶ 18, citing State v. Wagner, 80 Ohio

App.3d 88, 95-96, 608 N.E.2d 852 (12th Dist.1992). “‘The term “abuse of discretion” is

one of art, connoting judgment exercised by a court which neither comports with reason,

nor the record.’ State v. Underwood, 11th 12 Case No. 2022-A-0040 Dist. Lake No. 2008-
                                            4

Case Nos. 2022-L-058, 2022-L-059
L-113, 2009-Ohio-208 [2009 WL 1177050], ¶ 30, citing State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St.

667, 676-678 [148 N.E. 362] (1925).” State v. Raia, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2013-P-0020,

2014-Ohio-2707, ¶ 9. Stated differently, an abuse of discretion is “the trial court’s ‘failure

to exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.’” Id., quoting State v. Beechler,

2d Dist. Clark No. 09-CA-54, 2010-Ohio-1900, ¶ 62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 11

(8th Ed.Rev.2004).

       {¶15} “In fashioning an appropriate sentence in a misdemeanor case, the trial

court must consider the factors set forth under R.C. 2929.22.” State v. Anthony, 2019-

Ohio-5410, 151 N.E.3d 13, ¶ 181 (11th Dist.), citing Conneaut v. Coleman, 11th Dist.

Ashtabula No. 2010-A-0062, 2011-Ohio-5099, ¶ 22. A failure to consider those factors

amounts to an abuse of discretion. Id., citing State v. Rogers, 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos.

2009-T-0051, 2010-Ohio-197, ¶ 11.

       {¶16} Absent a failure to consider the R.C. 2929.22 factors, “if the sentence lies

within the statutory limit, a reviewing court will presume that the trial judge followed the

standards required by the statute.” Id., citing State v. Peppeard, 11th Dist. Portage No.

2008-P-0058, 2009-Ohio-1648, ¶ 75. There is no requirement for the trial court to state it

considered the misdemeanor sentencing factors on the record. Id., citing State v. Kish,

11th Dist. Lake No. 2010-L-138, 2010-Ohio-4172, ¶ 8. “Appellant's argument the court

disregarded the sentencing factors can be overruled if ‘[t]here is nothing in the transcript

of the sentencing hearing or the sentencing entry that affirmatively shows that the trial

court did not consider the appropriate factors in R.C. 2929.22.’” State v. Burley, 2017-

Ohio-378, 83 N.E.3d 322, ¶ 17, (7th Dist.) quoting State v. Williams, 4th Dist. Jackson

No. 15CA3, 2016-Ohio-73, ¶ 25.

                                              5

Case Nos. 2022-L-058, 2022-L-059
       {¶17} In this case, appellant claims that the trial court failed to reference the

factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22. However, there is no requirement that the trial court

state it considered the misdemeanor sentencing factors on the record. Anthony, supra,

¶ 181. Appellant’s sentence lies within the statutory limits, and nothing in the sentencing

entries available for review “‘affirmatively shows that the trial court did not consider the

appropriate factors in R.C. 2929.22.’” Burley, 2017-Ohio-378, at ¶ 17, quoting Williams,

2016-Ohio-73, at ¶ 25. Finally, without a transcript to review, we must presume the

regularity of the proceedings below and affirm. See Clay, 2004-Ohio-4386, at ¶ 7.

       {¶18} Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is without merit.

       {¶19} The judgment of the Mentor Municipal Court is affirmed.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                             6

Case Nos. 2022-L-058, 2022-L-059