[Cite as State v. Rasfeld,
2016-Ohio-2996.]
COURT OF APPEALS
ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
:
ADAM D. RASFELD : Case No. 15-COA-035
:
Defendant - Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland Municipal
Court, Case No. 15TRC06394
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 13, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
ANDREW N. BUSH JON J. SAIA
Assistant Director of Law JESSICA G. D'VARGA
1213 E. Main Street 713 South Front Street
Ashland, Ohio 44805 Columbus, Ohio 43206
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-035 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Adam Rasfeld appeals his sentence from the Ashland
Municipal Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On September 11, 2015 appellant was cited for speeding in violation of R.C.
4511.21(D)(4) and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OVI) in
violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (h). The citation indicated that appellant was driving
92 miles an hour in a 70 mile per hour zone and that appellant’s blood alcohol content
was .217.
{¶3} Appellant appeared pro se at his arraignment on September 15, 2015. At
such time, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the speeding charge and to the OVI R.C.
4511.19(A)(1)(h) charge, a misdemeanor of the first degree. The remaining charge was
dismissed. The trial court sentenced appellant to 120 days in jail, with sixty (60) days
suspended, and fined appellant $475.00. The trial court also ordered that appellant’s
operator’s license was suspended for a period of three (3) years.
{¶4} Appellant now raises the following assignment of error on appeal:
{¶5} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN SENTENCING MR.
RASFELD, AN UNREPRESENTED DEFENDANT, TO SIXTY (60) DAYS IN JAIL AND A
THREE (3) YEAR LICENSE SUSPENSION ON A FIRST OFFENSE OVI CONVICTION.
I
{¶6} Appellant, in his sole assignment of error, argues that the trial court abused
its discretion in sentencing him to sixty (60) days in jail and suspending appellant’s
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-035 3
operator’s license for a period of three (3) years. Appellant notes that this was his first
OVI offense, that he has a “very limited traffic record”, and that he accepted
responsibilities for his actions. Appellant further notes that he is a college graduate with
a full-time job. We note that appellant does not argue that his sentence was not within
the statutory permissible range.
{¶7} 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. Smith, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 05CA0006, 2006–Ohio–1558, ¶
21, citing State v. Pass, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L–92–017, 1992 WL 386011. See, also, State
v. Chadwick, 5th Dist. Knox No. 08CA15, 2009–Ohio–2472, ¶ 30. An abuse of discretion
implies the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. State v. Adams,
62 Ohio St.2d 151,
404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). Furthermore, there is no requirement that a
trial court, in sentencing on misdemeanor offenses, specifically state its reasons on the
record. State v. Harpster, 5th Dist. Ashland No.
04COA061, 2005–Ohio–1046, ¶ 20.
{¶8} R.C. 2929.21(A) states that “[a] court that sentences an offender for a
misdemeanor … shall be guided by the overriding purposes of misdemeanor
sentencing. ….” The overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing are to protect the
public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.” In order
to achieve those purposes, a 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.” Id.; State v. Coleman, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 05CA3037, 2006–Ohio–3200, ¶
21. In addition, R.C. 2929.21(B) states in pertinent part as follows: “A sentence imposed
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-035 4
for a misdemeanor … shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the two overriding
purposes of misdemeanor sentencing set forth in division (A) of this section,
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.”
{¶9} R.C. 2929.22 governs sentencing on misdemeanors and states as follows:
{¶10} (B)(1) In determining the appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, the court
shall consider all of the following factors:
{¶11} (a) The nature and circumstances of the offense or offenses;
{¶12} (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;
{¶13} (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;
{¶14} (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;
{¶15} (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;
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-035 5
{¶16} (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;
{¶17} (g) The offender's military service record.
{¶18} (2) In determining the appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, in addition
to complying with division (B)(1) of this section, the court may consider any other factors
that are relevant to achieving the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in section
2929.21 of the Revised Code.
{¶19} (C) Before imposing a jail term as a sentence for a misdemeanor, a court
shall consider the appropriateness of imposing a community control sanction or a
combination of community control sanctions under sections 2929.25, 2929.26, 2929.27,
and 2929.28 of the Revised Code. 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 crime.
{¶20} In the case sub judice, the trial court stated on the record, in relevant
part, as follows:
THE COURT: Well I’ll just tell you what concerns me about this, Mr.
Rasfeld. And I’ll give you a chance to respond if you want before I decide
what I’m going to do about it. But in my mind this a very bad OMVI for a lot
of reasons. I mean it’s a first offense, you don’t have a bad record. You’re
accepting responsibility. That’s - - I’ll credit you for that. But the bad part
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-035 6
of this, you’re going 92 miles an hour on a public highway, you run some
citizen off the road where someone could have very easily died. You’re not
just a guy over the legal limit. I mean at .217, I’m surprised you could stand.
At that point you are extremely intoxicated and a real danger to other people
on the highway and a real danger to yourself. So - - and then, to top that
off, you’re going 92 miles per hour and following too closely? I mean it’s
just the grace of God that you didn’t kill somebody. So in my mind this a
very, very bad DUI.
{¶21} Transcript of September 15, 2015 hearing at 14. The trial court also stated
that “this is about as bad an OMVI as I’ve ever seen.” Transcript of September 15, 2015
hearing at 15. Furthermore, at the hearing, the Assistant Law Director indicated to the
trial court that the Trooper’s report stated that appellant denied drinking and was
argumentative.
{¶22} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing appellant. The trial court’s decision was not arbitrary,
unconscionable or unreasonable in view of the facts of appellant’s case.
{¶23} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶24} Accordingly, the judgment of the Ashland Municipal Court is affirmed.
By: Baldwin, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
