State v. JohnsonState v. Johnson
Rendered on the 27th day of May, 2022.
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR. by ELIZABETH A. ELLIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0074332, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor‘s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
P.J. CONBOY, II, Atty. Reg. No. 0070073, 5613 Brandt Pike, Huber Heights, Ohio 45424
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
EPLEY, J.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} According to the presentence investigation report (PSI), at approximately 10:30 a.m. on March 6, 2021, Jeffrey Shepherd contacted law enforcement to report that someone had broken into the detached garage of his recently-deceased father‘s residence on Calumet Lane. The responding deputies were unable to enter the garage because it was being held closed from the inside. The officers noticed that a large padlock system on the pedestrian door had been pried and cut.
{¶ 3} A surveillance camera captured some of the events from that morning. At approximately 8:30 a.m., a woman in a long coat walked into view. Someone else then used a black winter hat to cover the camera, but it fell off after about 30 minutes. After the fall, the video showed three individuals - the woman in a long coat and two men - entering and removing items from the garage and taking them to Johnson‘s residence next door.
{¶ 4} The deputies reviewed the video and went to Johnson‘s residence; they were greeted by a woman, who retrieved Johnson. He told the deputies that he had been working on his front porch since 9:00 a.m. and had just gone inside. He also said that
{¶ 5} Shepherd informed the deputies that the woman in the long coat (later identified as Johnson‘s son‘s girlfriend) had left the back of Johnson‘s home, and the deputies went to locate her. The deputies found her, and she ultimately admitted that the stolen items were located in the back bedroom of Johnson‘s home.
{¶ 6} The deputies returned to Johnson‘s home and confronted him about having stolen property at his residence. Johnson responded, “bullsh*t, let‘s go see,” and walked deputies through his home and backyard, identifying items that did not belong to him. Officers photographed the stolen property and returned it to Shepherd; only one item, a propane heater, remained missing. Deputies determined that Johnson‘s son and the son‘s girlfriend (the woman who greeted them), both of whom lived with Johnson, and another man were suspects in the breaking and entering and theft.
{¶ 7} On August 30, 2021, Johnson was indicted for receiving stolen property ($7,500 or more, but less than $150,000), a fourth-degree felony. He subsequently pled guilty to receiving stolen property as a first-degree misdemeanor, a lesser-included offense, and the court ordered a presentence investigation. After reviewing the PSI and considering statements by Johnson and his attorney, the trial court imposed 180 days in the Montgomery County Jail. Johnson received one day of jail time credit.
{¶ 8} Johnson challenges his sentence on appeal.
II. Review of Johnson‘s Maximum Jail Sentence
{¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, Johnson claims that community control
{¶ 10} When sentencing for a misdemeanor offense, the trial court is guided by the “overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing,” which are “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.”
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12}
{¶ 13} The trial court is not required to state on the record its reasons for the particular sentence it imposes. Collins at ¶ 10. “If the sentence imposed is within permissible statutory limits, a reviewing court will presume that the trial court considered the sentencing factors in
{¶ 14} We review misdemeanor sentences for an abuse of discretion. State v. Peagler, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24426, 2012-Ohio-737, ¶ 3; Bakhshi, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25585, 2014-Ohio-1268, at ¶ 50. “A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343, 2013-Ohio-966, 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 34.
{¶ 15} At sentencing, the trial court heard from defense counsel, who emphasized that the video of the incident showed that Johnson did not enter and take items from Shepherd‘s garage. Counsel stated that Johnson‘s involvement, at most, consisted of storing the stolen items on his own property. Defense counsel asserted that Johnson had taken responsibility for his conduct and that community control sanctions with monitored time would be sufficient and would not demean the seriousness of the conduct.
{¶ 16} When asked if he had any anything to say, Johnson told the court, “I didn‘t know nothing about it. I didn‘t know that they were - it‘d even been broke into until later on.” During his presentence interview, Johnson had similarly denied knowing about the theft or how the stolen items came to be on his property; he expressed regret for admitting to the charge “when he had no knowledge of what happened.”
{¶ 17} Prior to imposing sentence, the court stated that it had reviewed the PSI and that it did not believe Johnson‘s version of the events. The court also noted that Johnson had “an extremely lengthy” criminal record involving both felonies and misdemeanors and that he had “not been successful on supervision.” The court told Johnson that, “considering all the factors I‘m required to consider on a misdemeanor sentence, I‘m going to sentence you to 180 days of local jail time,” which was the maximum jail term for a first-degree misdemeanor. See
{¶ 19} Johnson was not incarcerated during the pendency of this case, and the PSI reflects that Johnson reported to a probation officer as instructed during his pretrial supervision. However, a urinalysis conducted on November 24, 2021 tested positive for methamphetamine; Johnson denied using methamphetamine, could not explain how it got in his system, and denied the need for treatment. In addition, five days before sentencing in this case, Johnson was arrested and charged with felonious assault (deadly weapon); Johnson reportedly shot at the victim‘s vehicle while he was backing out of Johnson‘s driveway following an argument. The trial court could have reasonably concluded that Johnson‘s conduct while on supervision and his criminal history weighed heavily against a community control sentence and warranted a significant jail term.
{¶ 20} In addition, although the record indicates that Johnson did not actively remove items from Shepherd‘s father‘s residence, the trial court apparently did not believe Johnson‘s claim that he had no knowledge of the theft or the presence of stolen items on
{¶ 21} Upon review of the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court‘s 180-day jail sentence was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Johnson‘s assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 22} The trial court‘s judgment will be affirmed.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
DONOVAN, J. and LEWIS, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
Elizabeth A. Ellis
P.J. Conboy, II
Hon. Mary Katherine Huffman