State v. Taylor-Franklin , 2023 Ohio 1851 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Taylor-Franklin, 2023-Ohio-1851.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 22AP0014
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
ROBERT TAYLOR-FRANKLIN WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 2021 CR-B 001345
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 5, 2023
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Robert Taylor-Franklin, appeals the judgment of the Wayne County
Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In the early morning hours of November 7, 2021, police were dispatched to North
Buckeye Street in Wooster after several men were involved in an altercation. After police arrived,
Taylor-Franklin and the victim continued to argue and they ultimately had to be separated.
{¶3} Taylor-Franklin was charged with one count of assault and one count of disorderly
conduct in relation to the incident. Taylor-Franklin pleaded no contest to the charges and the trial
court found him guilty. Prior to sentencing, the trial court ordered a presentence investigation
report (“PSI”). On the count of assault, the trial court imposed a 12-month community control
sanction and ordered Taylor-Franklin to continue his counseling through the One Eighty program
and to refrain from using or possessing alcohol. The trial court also imposed a 30-day jail sentence
2
but suspended it so that Taylor-Franklin could be screened to serve the jail time on electronically
monitored house arrest. The trial court further imposed a $350 fine plus courts costs on the assault
charge and a $100 fine plus court costs on the disorderly conduct charge.
{¶4} Taylor-Franklin successfully moved for leave to file a delayed appeal.1 Now before
this Court, Taylor-Franklin raises one assignment of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SENTENCED APPELLANT
WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF
MISDEMEANOR SENTENCING CONTAINED IN [R.C.] 2929.21 AND THE
SENTENCING FACTORS LISTED IN [R.C.] 2929.22.
{¶5} In his sole assignment of error, Taylor-Franklin argues that the trial court abused
its discretion by failing to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C.
2929.21 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22. This Court disagrees.
{¶6} “Unless a sentence is contrary to law, we review challenges to misdemeanor
sentencing for an abuse of discretion.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Hoffman, 9th Dist. Medina No.
17CA0067-M, 2018-Ohio-2992, ¶ 5. An abuse of discretion indicates that the trial court was
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in its ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d
217, 219 (1983).
{¶7} R.C. 2929.21(A) provides that “[t]he overriding purposes of misdemeanor
sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the
offender.” “To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the impact of the
offense upon the victim and the need for changing the offender’s behavior, rehabilitating the
1
Taylor-Franklin then filed a motion to stay the execution of his sentence pending the
outcome of his appeal. The trial court denied the motion.
3
offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or the victim and the
public.” Id. A sentence imposed pursuant to R.C. 2929.21(A) “shall be reasonably calculated to
achieve the two overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing” and shall further be
“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).
{¶8} R.C. 2929.22(B)(1) sets forth the following factors for a trial court to consider in
determining an appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor offense:
(a) The nature and circumstances of the offense or offenses;
(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.
{¶9} On appeal, Taylor-Franklin does not challenge the legality of his sentence. Instead,
he argues that the trial court’s decision to include a 30-day jail term as part of its sentence indicates
4
that the trial court wholly disregarded R.C. 2929.21 and R.C. 2929.22 and, thus, abused its
discretion.
{¶10} A thorough review of the record in this case reveals that the trial court did not
disregard R.C. 2929.21 and R.C. 2929.22. The trial court stated in the sentencing entry that it
considered the factors set forth in R.C. Chapter 2929. When imposing a sentence for a
misdemeanor, a trial court has discretion “to determine the most effective way to achieve the
purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in [R.C. 2929.21].” R.C. 2929.22(A). “[A] court
that imposes a sentence upon an offender for a misdemeanor may impose on the offender any
sanction or combination of sanctions under sections 2929.24 to 2929.28 of the Revised Code.”
R.C. 2929.22(A). R.C. 2929.22 does not contain a requirement that the trial court set forth findings
or discuss the statutory considerations on the record when imposing a misdemeanor sentence. See
State v. Horr, 2d. Dist. Montgomery No. 29391, 2022-Ohio-3160, ¶ 7. A trial court is presumed
to have considered the factors in R.C. 2929.22 absent an affirmative showing to the contrary. State
v. Seidowsky, 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0037-M, 2015-Ohio-4311, ¶ 6. Taylor-Franklin’s
challenge pertains to his sentence for assault, a misdemeanor of the first degree. R.C. 2929.24
provides that a trial court may impose a jail term of up to 180 days for a first-degree misdemeanor.
Here, in addition to imposing a 12-month community control term that included anger
management counseling and an alcohol assessment, the trial court imposed a 30-day jail sentence
but suspended it so that Taylor-Franklin could be screened to serve the jail time on house arrest.
Taylor-Franklin was successfully screened and placed on house arrest.
{¶11} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court highlighted the seriousness of Taylor-
Franklin’s conduct as well as the role that alcohol played in fueling the incident. The trial court
observed that Taylor-Franklin was “playing a dangerous game” by “go[ing] after somebody like
5
this.” When Taylor-Franklin suggested that he rarely uses alcohol, the trial court engaged in a line
of questioning that underscored the role that alcohol played in the situation getting out of hand.
The trial court acknowledged several mitigating factors, such as the victim’s conduct during the
incident and the fact that Taylor-Franklin had already sought out counseling. Nevertheless, the
trial court imposed a sentence that included a 30-day jail term due to the severity of Taylor-
Franklin’s conduct. The trial court explained that because Taylor-Franklin had taken the initiative
to begin counseling, he could be permitted to serve the jail-term while on house arrest.
{¶12} The sentencing transcript further makes clear that the trial court carefully
considered the PSI in fashioning its sentence. The PSI reveals that Taylor-Franklin had a prior
disorderly conduct conviction in Wayne County as well as several other drug-related convictions.
Taylor-Franklin also had a prior felony assault conviction in South Carolina. The PSI’s sentencing
recommendation for Taylor-Franklin included incarceration with the option for that time to be
served on house arrest, as well as community control with anger management and alcohol
counseling.
{¶13} Under these circumstances, where Taylor-Franklin has failed to demonstrate that
the trial court disregarded the relevant statutory provisions, we cannot say that the trial court
abused its discretion in imposing sentence. Taylor-Franklin’s assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶14} Taylor-Franklin’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Wayne
County Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
6
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Wayne County
Municipal Court, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A
certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
SUTTON, P. J.
HENSAL, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
WESLEY A. JOHNSTON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
ANGELA WYPASEK, Prosecuting Attorney, and BRIANNA DIETRY, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Appellee.