State v. Rice , 2024 Ohio 3156 ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Rice, 2024-Ohio-3156.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 8-24-13
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. RICE, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Bellefontaine Municipal Court
Trial Court No. 21TRC03230
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 19, 2024
APPEARANCES:
William T. Cramer for Appellant
Crystal K. Welsh for Appellee
Case No. 8-24-13
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Christopher J. Rice (“Rice”) appeals the judgment
of the Bellefontaine Municipal Court, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing
his sentence. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} Rice was charged with one count of operating a vehicle under the
influence of alcohol (“OVI”) in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), an unclassified
misdemeanor; one count of OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(h), an
unclassified misdemeanor; and one count of failing to comply with a stop sign in
violation of R.C. 4511.43(A), a minor misdemeanor. On February 27, 2024, Rice
pled guilty to one count of OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), an
unclassified misdemeanor. On motion of the State, the trial court dismissed the
remaining two charges. At sentencing, the trial court ordered a term in jail of 365
days with 305 days suspended; imposed a fine of $1,250.00; and suspended Rice’s
driver’s license for five years. On February 27, 2024, the trial court issued its
judgment entry of sentencing.
Assignment of Error
{¶3} Rice filed his notice of appeal on March 15, 2024. On appeal, he raises
the following assignment of error:
-2-
Case No. 8-24-13
The trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence that
exceeded the minimum statutory terms.
Standard of Review
{¶4} Appellate courts apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing
a sentence imposed for a misdemeanor offense. State v. Hittle, 2019-Ohio-5172, ¶
8 (3d Dist.). An abuse of discretion is more than an error in judgment but is present
where the trial court made a decision that was arbitrary, unreasonable, or
unconscionable. State v. Edwards, 2023-Ohio-3213, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). In applying this
standard, “an appellate court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial
court.” State v. Richey, 2021-Ohio-1461, ¶ 40 (3d Dist.).
Legal Standard
{¶5} R.C. 2929.21(A) states that a trial court is to “be guided by the
overriding purposes” of “protect[ing] the public from future crime by the offender
and others” and “punish[ing] the offender” when imposing a sentence for a
misdemeanor offense. This requires the trial court to
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). Further, R.C. 2929.21(B) states that the
sentence imposed 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 its impact upon the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed
for similar offenses committed by similar offenders.
-3-
Case No. 8-24-13
In turn, R.C. 2929.22(B)(1) contains a list of seven factors that the trial court is to
consider in fashioning a sentence.
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.
State v. Johnson, 2022-Ohio-1782, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.). A trial court may also consider
any other relevant factors. R.C. 2929.22(B)(2).
{¶6} “In following the provisions of R.C. 2929.22, a trial court is not
required to state its specific reasons for imposing a sentence for a misdemeanor
conviction.” State v. Wilson, 2018-Ohio-2805, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.). For this reason, an
appellate “court will presume the trial court considered the criteria set forth in R.C.
2929.22 when: the sentence at issue is within the statutory limits; and there is no
affirmative showing that the trial court failed to consider the applicable statutory
factors.” Id. quoting State v. Urban, 2007-Ohio-4237, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.).
Legal Analysis
{¶7} The instant offense marked the third OVI conviction Rice had received
within the last ten years. For this reason, R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(C)(i) required the trial
court to impose a mandatory jail term of thirty days but permitted the trial court to
impose a jail term of up to one year. Among other consequences, R.C.
-4-
Case No. 8-24-13
4511.19(G)(1)(c) also provides for a fine of $850.00 to $2,750.00 and the
suspension of the offender’s driver’s license for two to twelve years. In this case,
the trial court imposed a jail term of 365 days but suspended 305 days of this
sentence; a fine of $1,250.00; and a driver’s license suspension of five years. On
appeal, Rice argues that the trial court’s decision not to impose the minimum jail
term, fine, and driver’s license suspension constituted an abuse of discretion.
{¶8} As an initial matter, we note that each of the components of Rice’s
sentence falls within the relevant statutory range. In this case, Rice was found to
have a blood alcohol level of 0.317 after he failed to comply with a stop sign. A
copy of Rice’s criminal record was filed. This document detailed his history of
multiple OVI convictions and license suspensions. At sentencing, the trial court
noted that this was Rice’s third OVI conviction in a ten-year period. Hittle, 2019-
Ohio-5172, ¶ 13. Rice concedes in his brief that the trial court “had understandable
concerns about recidivism * * *.” (Appellant’s Brief, 5).
{¶9} In conclusion, Rice has not directed our attention to any evidence in the
record that would suggest that the trial court did not consider the relevant R.C.
2929.22(B) factors while imposing this sentence. Having examined the record, we
conclude that Rice has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion
in imposing the sentence in this case. The sole assignment of error is overruled.
-5-
Case No. 8-24-13
Conclusion
{¶10} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Bellefontaine Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
WALDICK and MILLER, J.J., concur.
/hls
-6-