State v. Dowdy

2024 Ohio 1045

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 22, 2024
• Docket: C-230324
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Dowdy, 2024-Ohio-1045.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-230324 TRIAL NO. C-23CRB-5952 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : O P I N I O N.

JASON DOWDY, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal from: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry: March 22, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Angela J. Glaser, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

W INKLER , Judge.

{¶1} In this criminal appeal, defendant-appellant Jason Dowdy appeals the

municipal court’s imposition of consecutive sentences after Dowdy pled guilty to

multiple misdemeanor charges. Dowdy does not appeal the findings of guilt, only the

trial court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences. For the following reasons, we

affirm Dowdy’s sentences.

Background

{¶2} This case arises from multiple misdemeanor charges that Jason Dowdy

pled guilty to. Dowdy, then 19 years old, and his then-girlfriend broke up. Dowdy sent

his ex-girlfriend multiple threatening messages and phone calls until it escalated to

Dowdy going to the store where his ex-girlfriend worked and stealing the keys to her

car. The store’s general manager intervened and grabbed Dowdy before he took the

car. Dowdy bit her arm to free himself. As Dowdy started to drive off with his ex-

girlfriend’s car, the manager’s 12-year-old daughter ran after Dowdy. As Dowdy drove

out of the parking lot, the daughter was struck in the leg by the car door. The car was

recovered a few days later, though with an estimated $3,000 of recent damage.

{¶3} Dowdy was prosecuted by both the state of Ohio and the city of

Cincinnati. First, Dowdy was charged by complaint with aggravated menacing and

telecommunications harassment. Two weeks later, Dowdy was indicted for four other

misdemeanor charges: two counts of assault, one count of unauthorized use of a motor

vehicle, and one count of theft. Later, Dowdy was indicted for two felony counts of

aggravated robbery.

{¶4} Dowdy entered into a global plea agreement with both the state of Ohio

and the city of Cincinnati. The record on appeal indicates that Dowdy entered pleas

2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

of guilty to the two charges of assault, one charge of telecommunications harassment,

and one charge of theft. Dowdy also entered a plea of guilty to a reduced charge of

attempted aggravated menacing, a second-degree misdemeanor. In exchange, the

aggravated-robbery and unauthorized-use-of-a-motor-vehicle charges were

dismissed. There is no indication in the record that the plea agreement contained

agreed-upon recommended sentences.

{¶5} The municipal court accepted Dowdy’s pleas. At the sentencing

hearing, the court imposed the maximum sentence of 180 days each for the two

charges of assault and the charge of theft. The court then imposed 43 days’

imprisonment with credit for 43 days’ time served for each of the attempted-

aggravated-menacing and the telecommunications-harassment charges. The court

ordered that the sentences run consecutively for a total of 18 months’ imprisonment

with credit for 43 days served. Dowdy now appeals.

Law and Analysis

{¶6} In his sole assignment of error, Dowdy argues the trial court abused its

discretion by imposing consecutive sentences when the record did not support

consecutive sentences. An appellate court reviews the imposition of a misdemeanor

sentence for an abuse of discretion. State v. James, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210597,

2022-Ohio-2019, ¶ 15, citing State v. Griffin, 2020-Ohio-3703, 155 N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 28

(1st Dist.). An abuse of discretion means more than a mere error of law or judgment;

it implies that the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable. State v. Frazier, 158 Ohio App.3d 407, 2004-Ohio-4506,

815 N.E.2d 1155, ¶ 15 (1st Dist.). When a misdemeanor sentence is within the statutory

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

limits, the trial court is presumed to have considered the required factors, absent a

showing to the contrary by Dowdy. Id.

{¶7} The overriding principles of misdemeanor sentencing are “to protect

the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.”

R.C. 2929.21(A). To achieve these principles, the sentencing court must consider the

factors set forth in R.C. 2929.21(A) and 2929.22(B). These factors include the nature

and circumstances of the offense, the offender’s criminal history, and the likelihood

that the offender will recidivate. State v. Wilson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220117,

2022-Ohio-3655, ¶ 5.

{¶8} The court imposed consecutive 180-day sentences for each of the two

assault charges and the theft charge, none of which exceed the maximum statutory

range for first-degree misdemeanors. For the attempted-aggravated-menacing and

telecommunications-harassment charges, the court sentenced Dowdy to time served.

The aggregate sentence totaled 540 days’ imprisonment. R.C. 2929.41(B)(1). Because

the aggregate sentence was less than 18 months and each individual sentence was

within the statutory maximum, we presume the trial court considered the applicable

sentencing factors absent a showing to the contrary. ; Frazier at ¶ 15.

{¶9} A review of the record demonstrates that that the trial court considered

Dowdy’s conduct, behavior, and rehabilitation in determining his sentences. The trial

court reviewed a presentence-investigation report, a victim-impact statement, and

heard oral arguments from both parties. The trial court examined the nature and

circumstances of the offenses under R.C. 2922.22(B)(1)(a) when it found Dowdy’s

conduct “reprehensible” for stealing his ex-girlfriend’s car from her place of

employment, biting the manager when she attempted to stop him, and striking a

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

12-year-old girl with the car while fleeing. Then, while police were searching for

Dowdy, he sent messages to his ex-girlfriend threatening to kill her and her family, as

well as threatening to kidnap his ex-girlfriend’s three-year-old son and send her a

videotape of his gruesome murder. Based on that conduct, the trial court found Dowdy

to be an ongoing threat to his ex-girlfriend and her family under R.C. 2922(B)(1)(c).

{¶10} By way of mitigation, Dowdy offered that he accepted responsibility

and pled guilty, was genuinely remorseful, had no prior adult criminal convictions,

and that he would not reoffend in the future because his conduct was the result of

going through a break-up at the young age of 19 and losing family members at the

same time. He argues that the trial court should have accepted his remorse and not

imposed consecutive sentences. However, nothing compels the trial court to

reflexively accept a defendant’s statement of remorse. State v. Fissel, 1st Dist.

Hamilton No. C-210483, 2022-Ohio-1856, ¶ 15. It is within the trial court’s decision

to reject Dowdy’s offer that he was remorseful and would not reoffend is not and give

more weight to the aforementioned factors. See Wilson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-

220117, 2022-Ohio-3655, at ¶ 6-8.

{¶11} Because the sentences were within the statutory limits, the trial court

considered the applicable statutory factors, and Dowdy does not demonstrate

anything to the contrary, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing three

consecutive 180-day sentences. See State v. Walker, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-220271,

2023-Ohio-1222, ¶ 18 (within the trial court’s discretion to impose sentence of no jail

time where trial court considered defendant’s conduct, behavior, and rehabilitation.

Consequently, we overrule the assignment of error.

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Conclusion

{¶12} Having overruled the assignment of error, we affirm Dowdy’s

sentences.

Judgment affirmed.

Z AYAS , P.J., and C ROUSE , J., concur.

Please note: The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.