State v. Wiley
2014 Ohio 5766
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Jaimie Wiley was contacted by Deputy Leonard Vella at a trailer park after alleged insults from the park manager’s family; Wiley and two neighbors were present.
- Wiley agreed to write a statement and spent ~30 minutes doing so; during contact she was loud, agitated, repeatedly cursed at the deputy, and called him an “asshole.” An audio recording corroborated the exchange.
- Deputy Vella warned Wiley multiple times she would be arrested for disorderly conduct; when deputies attempted to handcuff her she clenched her fists, resisted physical control, spun/turned and was escorted to the ground to effect the arrest.
- Wiley was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest; after a bench trial she was acquitted of disorderly conduct but convicted of resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33). Sentence included a fine, suspended jail time on condition of counseling, and probation; execution stayed pending appeal.
- On appeal Wiley challenged jurisdiction (lack of final appealable order), the lawfulness of the underlying arrest (probable cause for disorderly conduct), and the trial court’s imposition of a fine without addressing ability to pay. The appellate court remanded for a corrected entry, then affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final, appealable order | State: sentencing entry was proper after nunc pro tunc compliance with Lester | Wiley: May 24, 2013 order lacked the fact of conviction; no final appealable order | Moot — trial court issued a conforming nunc pro tunc entry; jurisdiction proper |
| Lawfulness of arrest for disorderly conduct | State: deputy had probable cause given Wiley’s loud, abusive, persistent conduct in a public/common area and warnings to desist | Wiley: her profanity was responsive to others and did not amount to fighting words or probable cause for arrest | Affirmed — objective circumstances gave officer reasonable grounds to arrest for disorderly conduct, so resisting arrest conviction stands |
| Requirement to consider ability to pay before fine | State: statutes Wiley cites (R.C. 2929.19) govern felonies, not misdemeanors | Wiley: trial court failed to consider ability to pay under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) | Affirmed — no statutory requirement in misdemeanor sentencing (R.C. 2929.22) obligating the trial court to make an on-the-record ability-to-pay finding |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (trial entries must state fact of conviction and sentence for appealability)
- State v. Sansalone, 71 Ohio App.3d 284 (1991) (officer need only have objective reasonable grounds to arrest for disorderly conduct; fighting-words/annoyance test is objective)
- State v. Hoffman, 57 Ohio St.2d 129 (1978) (discussion of fighting words doctrine)
- State v. Wood, 112 Ohio App.3d 621 (1996) (fighting-words standard for speech-based disorderly conduct)