State v. Takacs , 2023 Ohio 3302 ( 2023 )

[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