Lakewood v. Dobra
2018 Ohio 960
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Dobra, a tenant in an apartment building, was charged with one count of menacing by stalking after a neighbor (about 20 years younger) rebuffed his romantic advances; she lived in the unit directly above him.
- Dobra entered a no-contest plea in April 2017; the trial court accepted the plea after a Crim.R. 11(E) colloquy and found him guilty.
- In June 2017 the court sentenced Dobra to 45 days in jail, a $250 fine, and five years of community-control supervision; the jail term and fine were stayed on appeal, but the no-contact supervision condition remained.
- On appeal Dobra raised two assignments: (1) the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.21 and 2929.22 in sentencing; (2) the court accepted a no-contest plea without a written jury-waiver form (relying on Fish).
- At oral argument counsel withdrew the second assignment because the First District had overruled Fish; the appeal thus focused on the sentencing challenge.
- The victim’s impact statement and the presentence report described conduct (complaining to her employer leading to drug testing, disparaging social-media posts, veiled threats, statements about having guns, and causing her to move) that the trial court reviewed before sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.21 and 2929.22 when imposing misdemeanor sentence | City: court reviewed presentence report and victim impact, sentence within statutory limits, therefore it is presumed the court considered required factors | Dobra: absence of explicit on-the-record findings shows the court did not consider statutory purposes/factors and sentence is contrary to law | Affirmed: presumption that required factors were considered when sentence is within statutory limits; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Whether the court erred by accepting a no-contest plea without a written jury waiver | City: plea acceptance was proper | Dobra: relied on Fish to require written waiver | Withdrawn by appellant; court noted Fish has been overruled and did not decide this issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (1st Dist. 1995) (held a written jury-waiver was required before accepting a no-contest plea for a petty offense; later courts have overruled this requirement)