State v. Jezioro, 2017 Ohio 2587

Kimberly Jezioro pled guilty to one count of OVI (R.C. 4511.19) on September 22, 2016.
Trial court sentenced her to community control and ordered 180 days in jail with 174 days suspended, leaving a six-day active jail term.
Jezioro timely appealed the sentencing entry and filed motions asking the trial court to reconsider the six-day jail term and to allow completion of a Driver's Intervention Program (DIP); she later submitted a doctor’s note reporting an anxiety disorder.
The trial court denied the reconsideration request; the court of appeals retained jurisdiction over the appeal of the original sentencing entry.
Jezioro argued the court abused its discretion by following an alleged blanket policy disallowing repeat DIP participation and by failing to consider mandated misdemeanor sentencing factors (R.C. 2929.21, 2929.22) and her doctor’s note.
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the sentence was within statutory limits and there was no affirmative showing the court failed to consider statutory factors or acted pursuant to an improper policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by imposing a six-day jail term without considering R.C. 2929.21/2929.22 factors	State: sentence within statutory limits and trial court presumed to have considered required factors	Jezioro: trial court failed to meaningfully consider purposes/principles of misdemeanor sentencing	Held for State — no abuse of discretion; sentence within limits and no affirmative showing statutory factors were ignored
Whether the court applied an arbitrary policy barring repeat completion of DIP	State: no evidence of a controlling court policy; comment only noted prior completion	Jezioro: trial court indicated a policy refusing DIP for repeat participants, so sentence was policy-driven	Held for State — remark about prior DIP did not establish a binding court policy and court did not sentence pursuant to a preconceived policy
Whether the court erred by refusing to consider the doctor’s letter about anxiety	State: motion to reconsider was improper after final judgment; letter filed after sentencing and did not compel relief	Jezioro: doctor’s note showed jail would harm treatment and should avoid active confinement	Held for State — court lacked authority to reconsider final judgment; letter did not present compelling reason to avoid jail

State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 (Ohio 2012) (trial courts lack authority to reconsider their own valid final criminal judgments)