State v. Hatten

[Cite as State v. Hatten, 2019-Ohio-5401.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 19CA0040-M
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
SHETORIA M. HATTEN WADSWORTH MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 18CRB00362
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 31, 2019
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Shetoria Hatten, appeals the judgment of the Wadsworth Municipal
Court. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} This appeal arises out of an attempted shoplifting at a Walmart. On April 23,
2018, a complaint was filed in the Wadsworth Municipal Court charging Hatten with one count
of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree. Hatten initially
pleaded not guilty to the charge at arraignment.
{¶3} Thereafter, Hatten appeared before the trial court and pleaded guilty to an
amended count of attempted theft, a misdemeanor of the second degree. The trial court imposed
a 90-day jail sentence as well as a $250.00 fine. In addition to ordering that Hatten receive credit
for 17 days served, the trial court further ordered that Hatten’s sentence in this case was to be
served concurrently with her sentence in a separate case.
2
{¶4} Hatten successfully moved for leave to file a delayed appeal. Now before this
Court, Hatten raises one assignment of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
SENTENCING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO THE MAXIMUM JAIL
TERM WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SENTENCING FACTORS UNDER
R.C. 2929.22[.]
{¶5} In her sole assignment of error, Hatten contends that the trial court failed to
consider the factors under R.C. 2929.22 prior to imposing a maximum sentence. Hatten further
contends that a maximum sentence was unwarranted under the facts of this case. This Court
disagrees.
{¶6} “Generally, misdemeanor sentencing is within the sound discretion of the trial
court and will not be disturbed upon review if the sentence is within the limits of the applicable
statute.” State v. Seidowsky, 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0037-M, 2015-Ohio-4311, ¶ 6, quoting
State v. Endress, 9th Dist. Medina No. 08CA0011-M, 2008-Ohio-4498, ¶ 3. An abuse of
discretion is more than an error of judgment; it means that the trial court was unreasonable,
arbitrary or unconscionable in its ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St. 3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶7} “[I]t is well recognized that a trial court abuses its discretion when, in imposing a
sentence for a misdemeanor, it fails to consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22.” Seidowsky
at ¶ 6, quoting Endress at ¶ 3. However, “[a] trial court is presumed to have considered the
factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22 ‘absent an affirmative showing to the contrary.’” Seidowsky at ¶
6, quoting Endress at ¶ 4. “The burden of demonstrating this error falls to the appellant.”
Endress at ¶ 4.
3
{¶8} Hatten contends that there is nothing in the record indicating that the trial court
considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22. Hatten emphasizes this point with respect to
R.C. 2929.22(C), which states that “[a] court may impose the longest jail term authorized under
[R.C. 2929.24] 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
crime.”
{¶9} Hatten’s argument is without merit. At sentencing, the trial court indicated that it
reviewed the presentence investigation report prior to imposing the 90-day sentence. There is
nothing in the record suggesting that the trial court failed to consider the factors set forth in R.C.
2929.22. As noted above, we must presume that the trial court considered the factors set forth in
R.C. 2929.22 in misdemeanor sentencing. See State v. Powell, 9th Dist. Medina No. 18CA0048-
M, 2019-Ohio-2061, ¶ 7. As Hatten has not met her burden of making an affirmative
demonstration to the contrary, she cannot prevail on her argument. Id.
{¶10} Hatten further contends that the circumstances of this case did not merit a 90-day
jail sentence. Hatten maintains that while the trial court stated that it considered the presentence
investigation report, it did not state on the record what information from the report it considered
in imposing sentence. The presentence investigation report has not been made part of the
appellate record in the instant appeal. “It is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure that the
record on appeal contains all matters necessary to allow this Court to resolve the issues on
appeal.” State v. Farnsworth, 9th Dist. Medina No. 15CA0038-M, 2016-Ohio-7919, ¶ 16. As
the presentence investigation report is not included in the appellate record here, we must
4
presume regularity in the trial court’s proceedings. See State v. Burden, 9th Dist. Summit No.
28367, 2017-Ohio-4420, ¶ 7.
{¶11} Hatten’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{¶12} Hatten’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Wadsworth
Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Wadsworth
Municipal Court, County of Medina, 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
5
TEODOSIO, P. J.
CALLAHAN, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
WESLEY A., JOHNSTON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
THOMAS J. MORRIS, Assistant Director of Law, for Appellee.