Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 07-30-2020
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO v. STEPHEN MICHAEL HOBDEN
Case Number: 19AP0056
Judge: Jennifer L. Hensal
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney: DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and ANDREA D. UHLER, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Call 918-582-6422 for free help finding a great criminal defense lawyer.
Description:
 |
{¶2} After initially pleading not guilty, Mr. Hobden pleaded no contest to one count of
failure to comply with an order or signal from a police officer in violation of Revised Code Section
2921.331(B), a first-degree misdemeanor. R.C. 2921.331(C)(3). The trial court found Mr. Hobden
guilty, and the matter proceeded to sentencing.
{¶3} At sentencing, the trial court sentenced Mr. Hobden to 12 months of community
control and 30 days in the Wayne County Jail. The trial court stated that it would stay the 30-day
jail sentence and allow Mr. Hobden to complete that portion of his sentence on electronically
monitored house arrest if he qualified. The trial court indicated that Mr. Hobden was required to
test negative for illegal substances, including marijuana. Mr. Hobden’s counsel informed the trial
2
court that Mr. Hobden holds a medical-marijuana card, which was issued to him by his physician.
The trial court indicated that, since it could not differentiate between the medical and recreational
uses of marijuana during Mr. Hobden’s potential 30-day house arrest, it would require Mr. Hobden
to stop using marijuana during that time. It reasoned that, if it were to order Mr. Hobden to
complete his jail sentence in the Wayne County Jail, Mr. Hobden would likewise be unable to use
marijuana during that time. The trial court informed Mr. Hobden that it would consider any
medical prescriptions he submitted to the court, but that – at that point – it would not permit him
to use marijuana while on house arrest.
{¶4} After the sentencing hearing, Mr. Hobden again requested that the trial court allow
him to use medical marijuana while on house arrest. The trial court denied Mr. Hobden’s request,
and Mr. Hobden moved the trial court to reconsider its decision. The trial court denied Mr.
Hobden’s motion for reconsideration and indicated that it would provide him with a report date to
begin serving a 30-day jail sentence in the Wayne County Jail. Mr. Hobden has appealed that
decision, raising one assignment of error for this Court’s review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE HIS SENTENCE BY ELECTRONICALLY
MONITORED HOUSE ARREST BY IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL,
UNWRITTEN REQUIREMENT WHEN APPELLANT MET ALL STATED
REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM.
{¶5} In his assignment of error, Mr. Hobden argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by refusing to allow him to serve his 30-day jail sentence on electronically monitored
house arrest based upon his continued use of medical marijuana. For the reasons that follow, this
Court disagrees.
3
{¶6} “A trial court generally has discretion in sentencing[,]” including broad discretion
to shape community-control sanctions. State v. Pope, 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0031-M, 2014-
Ohio-2864, ¶ 7; State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 2015-Ohio-2089, ¶ 19. “Unless a sentence
is contrary to law, we review challenges to misdemeanor sentencing for an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Schneider, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 09CA0026, 2009-Ohio-6025, ¶ 6. An abuse of discretion
indicates that the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in its ruling.
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶7} In support of his assignment of error, Mr. Hobden argues that Rule 3(K) of the
Local Rules of the Wayne County Municipal Court, which sets forth the requirements for house
arrest, does not require him to stop using prescribed medical marijuana in order to qualify for
house arrest. He argues that, because he met all of the requirements under Rule 3(K), the trial
court abused its discretion by not allowing to him to complete his 30-day jail sentence on house
arrest, as opposed to in the Wayne County Jail.
{¶8} In response, the State argues that, because house arrest is a community-control
sanction, the trial court had discretion to determine which restrictions were appropriate. In support
of its position, the State cites Section 2929.22(A), which permits a trial court to sentence a
defendant to any sanction under Sections 2929.24 to 2929.28 of the Revised Code for a
misdemeanor offense. It then cites Section 2929.27, which provides for nonresidential sanctions,
including house arrest with electronic monitoring. R.C. 2929.27(A)(2). It notes that “[h]ouse
arrest” is defined, in part, as “a period of confinement * * * that is in the offender’s home * * *
during which * * * [t]he offender is subject to any other restrictions and requirements that may be
imposed by the sentencing court[.]” R.C. 2929.01(P)(3). The State also relies upon Section
2929.25(C)(2), which provides that a trial court shall require an offender placed on community
4
control to abide by the law, as well as any additional requirements imposed “[i]n the interests of
doing justice, rehabilitating the offender, and ensuring the offender’s good behavior[.]”
{¶9} Mr. Hobden’s argument on appeal presupposes that any offender who meets the
requirements of Rule 3(K) is entitled to serve his or her jail sentence on house arrest. His argument
ignores the relevant case law and statutes, which give a trial court broad discretion to impose
additional community-control requirements on an offender. See Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173,
2015-Ohio-2089, at ¶ 19 (noting a trial court’s broad discretion to shape community-control
sanctions); R.C. 2929.25(C)(2) (governing community-control sanctions for misdemeanor
offenses and providing that “[i]n the interests of doing justice, rehabilitating the offender, and
ensuring the offender's good behavior, the court may impose additional requirements on the
offender.”); R.C. 2929.01(P)(3) (acknowledging that a trial court can impose additional restrictions
on an offender placed on house arrest). Given the trial court’s broad discretion in shaping
community-control sanctions, this Court cannot say that the trial court’s refusal to allow Mr.
Hobden to serve his 30-day jail sentence on house arrest under these facts was unreasonable,
arbitrary, or unconscionable. Accordingly, Mr. Hobden’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Outcome: Mr. Hobden’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Wayne County
Municipal Court is affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: