State v. Moloney , 2016 Ohio 7822 ( 2016 )

[Cite as State v. Moloney, 2016-Ohio-7822.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HANCOCK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 5-16-10
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RICHARD A. MOLONEY, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2015 CR 269
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: November 21, 2016
APPEARANCES:
Tim A. Dugan for Appellant
Mark C. Miller for Appellee
Case No. 5-16-10
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Richard Moloney (“Moloney”) brings this appeal
from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County sentencing
him to community control which included a term of local incarceration. Moloney
claims that the trial court’s judgment was unreasonable when it included a term of
local incarceration that would likely result in the loss of employment. For the
reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On February 8, 2016, Moloney entered a plea of guilty to one count of
possession of a controlled substance in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the
fifth degree. Doc. 19, 50. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced
appellant to five years of community control sanctions. Doc. 21, 28 As part of
those sanctions, the trial court ordered Moloney to serve 30 days in the local jail.
Doc. 28. The trial court deferred the time at the discretion of the probation officer.
Id. Moloney brings his appeal from this judgment and raises the following
assignment of error.
The trial court’s terms and conditions for community control
were unreasonable.
{¶3} The sole issue raised upon appeal is whether the trial court’s sentence,
which included 30 days of local incarceration, was unreasonable. A trial court has
broad discretion in determining which community control sanctions to impose.
State v. Oates, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-12-19, 2013-Ohio-2609, ¶ 21, 993 N.E.2d 846.
-2-
Case No. 5-16-10
However, those sanctions must be reasonably related to the statutory ends and not
overly broad. Id. citing State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 550 N.E.2d 469 (1990).
In Jones, the Supreme Court of Ohio relied on a “commonsense”
understanding of the conditions of supervision to determine
whether a condition is overbroad and held that “[c]ourts imposing
conditions on probation are not expected to define with specificity
the probationer's behavior in all possible circumstances. Rather,
the conditions must be clear enough to notify the probationer of
the conduct expected of him[.]” * * * “The goals of community
control are ‘rehabilitation, administering justice, and ensuring
good behavior.’ ” * * * “Thus, ‘courts should consider whether
the condition (1) is reasonably related to rehabilitating the
offender, (2) has some relationship to the crime of which the
offender was convicted, and (3) relates to conduct which is
criminal or reasonably related to future criminality and serves the
statutory ends of probation.’ ” * * *.
Oates, supra at ¶ 22.
(A)(1) If in sentencing an offender for a felony the court is not
required to impose a prison term * * * upon the offender, the
court may directly impose a sentence that consists of one or more
community control sanctions authorized pursuant to section
2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code. * * *
The duration of all community control sanctions imposed upon an
offender under this division shall not exceed five years. * * * If the
court sentences the offender to one or more nonresidential
sanctions under section 2929.17 of the Revised Code, the court
shall impose as a condition of the nonresidential sanctions that,
during the period of the sanctions, the offender must abide by the
law and must not leave the state without the permission of the
court or the offender’s probation officer. The court may impose
any other conditions of release under a community control
sanction that the court considers appropriate * * * .
R.C. 2929.15. One of the residential sanctions which is permitted by statute is that
the trial court may require an offender to serve a term of up to six months in a
-3-
Case No. 5-16-10
community-based correctional facility that serves the county or a local jail. R.C.
2929.16(A), (B).
{¶4} In this case, Moloney was sentenced to community control and as part
of that sentence, the trial court ordered that Moloney serve 30 days in the Hancock
County Justice Center. The trial court ordered this portion of the sentence due to
the fact that while awaiting sentence for possession of cocaine, Moloney tested
positive for cocaine and marijuana. The trial court found that while Moloney was
amenable to community control, the jail time was the consequence for failing to
abide by the terms of his bond and testing positive for drugs while awaiting
sentencing. The sentence imposed by the trial court was within the community
control sanctions allowed by statute. Although there may be a negative consequence
to Moloney as a result of the sentence, that alone does not mean that the trial court
abused its discretion. The trial court considered Moloney’s claim that the sentence
would cause him to lose his employment and modified the sentence to address the
issue. Tr. 55-57. Contrary to Moloney’s argument on appeal, the trial court did not
refuse any accommodation. Rather, the trial court left the issue of when the time
would be served to the discretion of the probation officer. This sentence was
permitted by the law and there is no indication in the record that the trial court
abused its discretion in imposing the sentence. Therefore, the assignment of error
is overruled.
-4-
Case No. 5-16-10
{¶5} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock
County is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur.
/hls
-5-