State v. Sarigianopoulos
2013 Ohio 5772
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant John Sarigianopoulos pleaded no contest to second-offense OVI after a head-on collision while intoxicated.
- Appellant had prior OVI convictions and faced additional charges including failure to control; plea on May 11, 2012 reduced to second-offense OVI and one count of failure to control.
- The plea agreement dismissed a charge of failure to obey a traffic control device; judge informed Appellant of a 10-day minimum and 180-day maximum on the OVI charge.
- Sentencing occurred on August 6, 2012; the court imposed 60 days in jail, plus a fine, costs, license suspension, three years of intensive probation, and drug counseling.
- The trial court credited Appellant’s failure to accept responsibility and noted his prior record and the seriousness of the accident as reasons for the sentence.
- Appellant challenged the sentence as disproportionate under ORC 2929.21(B); the court treated it as plain error and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 60-day OVI sentence is disproportionate. | Sarigianopoulos argues sentence not proportionate to similar offenses. | State asserts proportionality; no abuse given seriousness and prior record. | No plain error or abuse; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lazazzera, 2013-Ohio-2547 (7th Dist No. 12 MA 170, 2013-Ohio-2547) (plain-error framework; proportionality review limited to the case)
- State v. Georgakopoulos, 2003-Ohio-4341 (8th Dist. No. 81934, 2003-Ohio-4341) (proportionality requires consistency, not identical sentences)
- State v. Collins, 2012-Ohio-4969 (2d Dist. No. 2012-CA-2, 2012-Ohio-4969) (overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing)
- State v. Sheppeard, 2013-Ohio-812 (2d Dist. No. 2012 CA 27, 2013-Ohio-812) (minimum 10 days; variability in appropriate term)
- State v. Schmidbauer, 2013-Ohio-530 (12th Dist. No. CA2012-08-061, 2013-Ohio-530) (cases supporting variable sentences within statutory range)
- State v. Miller, 2009-Ohio-4831 (12th Dist. No. CA2009-01-008, 2009-Ohio-4831) (example of up to maximum term considerations)
- State v. West, 2006-Ohio-5834 (3d Dist. No. 2-06-04, 2006-Ohio-5834) (emphasizes discretion in sentencing within range)
- State v. Burton, 1977 (52 Ohio St.2d 21, 368 N.E.2d 297) (permissible consideration of dismissed charges in sentencing)
- State v. Adams, 1980 (62 Ohio St.2d 151, 404 N.E.2d 144) (abuse of discretion standard for misdemeanor sentencing)
- State v. McColor, 2013-Ohio-1279 (7th Dist No. 11 MA 64, 2013-Ohio-1279) (abuse-of-discretion standard for misdemeanor sentencing)