Court Opinion

ID: 9371954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 14:06:53.056926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:31.313434
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Scott, 2023-Ohio-476.]

                                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                   SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                       CHAMPAIGN COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO                                      :
                                                    :
       Appellee                                     :   C.A. No. 2022-CA-16
                                                    :
 v.                                                 :   Trial Court Case Nos. 22CRB261A;
                                                    :   22CRB261B; 22CRB261C;
 MINDY M. SCOTT                                     :   22CRB261D
                                                    :
       Appellant                                    :   (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
                                                    :

                                              ...........

                                              OPINION

                                      Rendered on February 17, 2023

                                              ...........

ROGER A. STEFFAN and MARK M. FEINSTEIN, Attorneys for Appellee

DONALD K. POND, JR., Attorney for Appellant

                                             .............

WELBAUM, P.J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Mindy M. Scott, appeals from her conviction in the Champaign

County Municipal Court after pleading no contest to four counts of vehicular

manslaughter. Specifically, Scott contends that the trial court erred by imposing the

maximum jail term for each of her offenses.             For the reasons outlined below, the
                                                                                          -2-

judgments of the trial court will be affirmed.

                           Facts and Course of Proceedings

       {¶ 2} On April 19, 2022, the State filed complaints charging Scott with four counts

of vehicular manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.06(A)(4), misdemeanors of the second

degree, and one count of failing to maintain her lane of travel in violation of R.C.

4511.25(A), a minor misdemeanor. The charges arose after Scott operated her vehicle

left of center on U.S. Route 68 in Urbana Township and collided with an oncoming vehicle.

The accident resulted in the death of four passengers in Scott’s vehicle, 33-year-old

Amber Whitt, 31-year-old Timothy Whitt, 24-year-old Robert Whitt, and 13-year-old I.B.

       {¶ 3} On May 2, 2022, Scott entered a plea agreement and pled no contest to the

four counts of vehicular manslaughter. In exchange for Scott’s no contest plea, the State

agreed to remain silent during sentencing and to dismiss the count for failing to maintain

her lane of travel. The trial court accepted Scott’s no contest plea and found her guilty

of the four counts of vehicular manslaughter. The trial court thereafter scheduled the

matter for sentencing and ordered a presentence investigation (“PSI”).

       {¶ 4} On June 15, 2022, the trial court held Scott’s sentencing hearing. During

the hearing, the trial heard statements from Scott’s counsel, the decedents’ family, and

Scott. After hearing those statements, and after indicating that it had reviewed the PSI,

the trial court sentenced Scott to serve the maximum 90-day jail term for each of her

vehicular manslaughter offenses. In addition, the trial court ordered Scott to serve those

jail terms consecutively for a total term of 360 days in jail. The trial court also imposed a
                                                                                         -3-

$500 fine and a two-year license suspension on each count for a total fine of $2,000 and

an aggregate license suspension of eight years. The trial court further ordered Scott to

undergo a mental health evaluation and stated that the court would decide whether to

suspend any of Scott’s jail time after reviewing the evaluation. Thereafter, the trial court

held a sentencing review hearing on September 15, 2022, during which it suspended 267

days of Scott’s jail sentence, credited Scott for 93 days served, and placed Scott on

community control.

       {¶ 5} Scott now appeals from her sentence, raising a single assignment of error

for review.

                                  Assignment of Error

       {¶ 6} Under her sole assignment of error, Scott contends that the trial court erred

by imposing the maximum possible jail term for each of her vehicular manslaughter

offenses. Specifically, Scott claims that the trial court’s decision to impose the maximum

jail term did not comply with R.C. 2929.22(C), which provides that a maximum jail term

for a misdemeanor offense may only be imposed “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 future crime.” R.C. 2929.22(C). Scott asserts that

she should not have been sentenced to the maximum jail term because the record

establishes that she did not commit one of the worst forms of vehicular manslaughter and

because she had no prior criminal offenses or traffic violations.
                                                                                         -4-

                                   Standard of Review

       {¶ 7} Appellate courts review misdemeanor sentences for an abuse of discretion.

State v. Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29336, 2022-Ohio-1782, ¶ 14.        “A trial court

abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or

arbitrary.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343, 2013-Ohio-966,

986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 34. Most instances of abuse of discretion occur when a trial court

makes a decision that is unreasonable. AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community

Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990).                “A

decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that

decision.” Id. An abuse of discretion will not be found simply because the reviewing

court would reach a different conclusion if it were deciding the issue de novo. Id.

                                Misdemeanor Sentencing

       {¶ 8} When sentencing for a misdemeanor offense, the trial court is guided by the

“overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing[,]” which are “to protect the public from

future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.” R.C. 2929.21(A);

State v. Bakhshi, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25585, 2014-Ohio-1268, ¶ 47. “To achieve

those purposes, the sentencing court [must] 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). The sentence imposed must be “reasonably calculated to achieve the
                                                                                         -5-

two overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing * * *, commensurate with and not

demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact upon the victim,

and consistent with sentences imposed for similar offenses committed by similar

offenders.”   R.C. 2929.21(B).   “Unless a mandatory jail term or specific sanction is

required to be imposed, a trial court has discretion to determine the most effective way to

achieve the purposes and principles of misdemeanor sentencing, which may include any

sanction or combination of sanctions authorized.” State v. Horr, 2d Dist. Montgomery

No. 29391, 2022-Ohio-3160, ¶ 5, citing R.C. 2929.22(A).

       {¶ 9} In determining the appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, the trial court

must consider seven factors listed under R.C. 2929.22(B)(1).         Id. at ¶ 6.   “Stated

generally, those factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense(s); whether

the offender has a history of persistent criminal activity and is likely to commit another

offense; whether there is a substantial risk that the offender will be a danger to others;

whether the victim’s circumstances made the victim particularly vulnerable to the offense

or made the impact of the offense more serious; and factors relating to the offender’s

military service, if any.” Johnson at ¶ 11, citing R.C. 2929.22(B)(1)(a)-(g). The court

may also consider “any other factors that are relevant to achieving the purposes and

principles of sentencing set forth in [R.C. 2929.21.]” R.C. 2929.22(B)(2). In addition,

the court must consider “any relevant oral or written statement made by the victim, the

defendant, the defense attorney, or the prosecuting authority regarding sentencing for a

misdemeanor.” R.C. 2929.22(D)(1).

       {¶ 10} As relevant to this case, R.C. 2929.22(C) provides that the maximum jail
                                                                                          -6-

term for a misdemeanor may only be imposed “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 future crime.”       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. McClurg, 2d Dist.

Darke No. 2019-CA-15, 2020-Ohio-1144, ¶ 7, citing State v. Jackson, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 20819, 2005-Ohio-4521, ¶ 16. Accord State v. Adkins, 2d Dist. Clark

No. 2019-CA-45, 2020-Ohio-3296, ¶ 13. Indeed, the trial court is not required to make

findings on the record with regard to any of the sentencing considerations under R.C.

2929.22.   Horr at ¶ 7, citing Jackson at ¶ 13.       “When a misdemeanor sentence is

imposed within the statutory limits, reviewing courts will presume that the trial court

considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22 absent an affirmative showing to the

contrary.” Id.

       {¶ 11} As previously discussed, Scott claims that the trial court’s decision to

impose the maximum jail term for each of her vehicular manslaughter offenses does not

comply with the requirements of R.C. 2929.22(C) because: (1) she had no prior criminal

offenses or traffic violations; and (2) the record failed to establish that she had committed

one of the worst forms of vehicular manslaughter.

       {¶ 12} Upon review, we find that the PSI establishes that Scott had no prior

criminal offenses or traffic violations before the accident at issue. Therefore, the only

basis on which the trial court could have imposed a maximum jail term was by concluding
                                                                                          -7-

that Scott had committed one of the worst forms of vehicular manslaughter.

       {¶ 13} “The phrase ‘worst forms of the offense’ is not defined by statute and it is

left primarily to the trial court’s discretion to determine its meaning.” State v. Huff, 7th

Dist. Jefferson No. 98 JE 23, 2000 WL 1741901, *5 (Nov. 20, 2000), citing State v.

Mushrush, 135 Ohio App.3d 99, 733 N.E.2d 252 (1st Dist.). That said, “[t]he General

Assembly must have intended the phrase ‘worst forms of the offense’ to include many

conceivable forms, because the plural ‘forms’ contemplates ‘not just a single form of any

offense that is the worst, but that more than one situation may be one of the worst forms

of the offense.’ ” Mushrush at 110, quoting State v. Patterson, 4th Dist. Washington No.

97CA28, 1998 WL 720733, *4 (Sept. 21, 1998).

       {¶ 14} Here, the PSI established that Scott caused the accident in question by

hitting a vehicle in the oncoming traffic lane after she traveled left of center on the

highway. The record is silent as to what specifically caused Scott to travel left of center.

The PSI indicated that the traffic crash report cited “equipment failure” on the part of

Scott’s vehicle. However, following an investigation, the Champaign County Sheriff’s

Office determined that the accident was simply caused by Scott’s traveling left of center

on the highway. The PSI stated that the accident happened while Scott was driving in

the rain and talking to one of her passengers about her son’s birthday party. The PSI

also indicated that Scott was not talking on the phone or texting while driving, and that

her blood tested negative for drugs or alcohol at the time of the accident.

       {¶ 15} The PSI further indicated that four out of the seven people in Scott’s vehicle

died at the scene of the collision. Scott and two of the children in her vehicle were injured
                                                                                            -8-

and taken to the hospital for medical treatment. The two occupants of the vehicle with

which Scott collided were also injured and taken to the hospital for medical treatment. In

addition to the great loss of life and the multiple physical injuries, the PSI established that

several of the decedents’ family members have struggled mentally and emotionally with

the loss of their loved ones and that some of the decedents had young children who will

never know their parent.

       {¶ 16} The record also establishes that Scott was driving without any insurance at

the time of the accident. At the sentencing hearing, Scott advised the trial court that she

had never been insured in the five years that she had been driving, which the trial court

found “unbelievable.” Sentencing Tr. (May 2, 2022), p. 22. The PSI and the record of

the sentencing hearing also indicated that some of the victims’ family members had

observed Scott continuing to drive uninsured after the accident.             The PSI further

established that several of the decedents’ family members reported that Scott had shown

no remorse for their loss and did not appear to take the matter seriously. The trial court

also stated at the sentencing hearing that: “[W]e’ve had countless different hearings in

here” and “[t]oday is the first day that I’ve seen you react or show any compassion

whatsoever. I’ve never seen it until today.” Id. at 23. The trial court also expressed

concern with the fact that Scott had not taken any steps to receive counseling.

       {¶ 17} While we acknowledge that loss of life occurs as a result of every instance

of vehicular manslaughter, given that the offenses in this case also resulted in physical,

mental, and emotional injuries to several people, and given Scott’s longtime status as an

uninsured driver and her lack of remorse, we do not find that it was unreasonable for the
                                                                                         -9-

trial court to find that Scott committed one of the worst forms of vehicular manslaughter.

Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision to impose the maximum jail term

for each offense was an abuse of discretion, especially since the trial court eventually

suspending 267 days of Scott’s 360-day jail sentence.

      {¶ 18} For the foregoing reasons, Scott’s sole assignment of error is overruled.

                                      Conclusion

      {¶ 19} Having overruled Scott’s assignment of error, the judgments of the trial court

are affirmed.

                                    .............

TUCKER, J. and EPLEY, J., concur.