[Cite as State v. Fromknecht, 2023-Ohio-4604.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2023-A-0041 CITY OF CONNEAUT, 2023-A-0043
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeals from the Conneaut Municipal Court - vs -
CHRISTOPHER FROMKNECHT, Trial Court Nos. 2023 CRB 00134 A 2023 CRB 00134 B Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: December 18, 2023 Judgment: Affirmed
John D. Lewis, Law Director, City of Conneaut, 294 Main Street, Conneaut, OH 44030 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Margaret Brunarski, Ashtabula County Public Defender, and Michael J. Ledenko, Assistant Public Defender, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Christopher Fromknecht, appeals his sentences for
Aggravated Menacing, Telecommunications Harassment, and a Probation Violation. For
the following reason, Fromknecht’s sentences are affirmed.
{¶2} On June 14, 2023, Fromknecht pled guilty to Aggravated Menacing, a
misdemeanor of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) (Conneaut Mun. No.
23CRB00134-A), and Telecommunications Harassment, a misdemeanor of the first
degree in violation of R.C. 2917.21(A)(1) (Conneaut Mun. No. 23CRB00135-C), and admitted a Probation Violation (Conneaut Mun. No. 23CRB00136). The municipal court
sentenced him to the maximum of 180 days in jail for Aggravated Menacing; the maximum
of 180 days in jail for Telecommunications Harassment; and for the Probation Violation a
jail sentence of 120 days and a suspended sentence of 180 days. The sentences were
ordered to be served consecutively and, for Conneaut Mun. Nos. 23CRB00134-A and
23CRB00135-C, were stayed pending appeal.
{¶3} Fromknecht filed timely Notices of Appeal. On appeal, he raises the
following assignment of error: “The trial court clearly and convincingly committed
prejudicial error that deprived Christopher Fromknecht of due process of law as
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article
One, Section Ten of the Ohio Constitution and violated Revised Code 2953.08 by
sentencing him to maximum and consecutive jail sentences.”
{¶4} Contrary to the assertions in the assignment of error, Fromknecht’s
convictions are misdemeanor convictions to which R.C. 2953.08 and case law relevant
to felony sentencing does not apply.
{¶5} “A court that sentences an offender for a misdemeanor * * * shall be guided
by the overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing.” R.C. 2929.21(A). “The
overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing are to protect the public from future
crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.” Id. “A sentence imposed
for a misdemeanor * * * shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the two overriding
purposes of misdemeanor sentencing * * *, commensurate with and not demeaning to the
seriousness of the offender’s conduct * * *, and consistent with sentences imposed for
similar offenses committed by similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.21(B). “In determining the
Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043 appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, the court shall consider * * * [t]he nature and
circumstances of the offense” and “[w]hether the circumstances regarding the offender
and the offense * * * indicate that the offender has a history of persistent criminal activity
and that the offender’s character and condition reveal a substantial risk that the offender
will commit another offense.” R.C. 2929.22(B)(1)(a) and (b).
{¶6} “A court may impose the longest jail term authorized under section 2929.24
of the Revised Code only upon offenders who commit the worst forms of the offense or
upon offenders whose conduct and response to prior sanctions for prior offenses
demonstrate that the imposition of the longest jail term is necessary to deter the offender
from committing a future criminal offense.” R.C. 2929.22(C). “Although R.C. 2929.22(C),
identifies the circumstances under which a maximum sentence is permissible, it does not
require the trial court to make any explicit findings.” State v. Scott, 2023-Ohio-476, 208
N.E.3d 1038, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.). “[W]hen the misdemeanor offender’s sentence is within the
statutory limits and there is no affirmative indication on the record that the trial court failed
to consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22, the reviewing court is to presume the
trial court considered the applicable statutory factors when it imposed the sentence.”
State v. Corradetti, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-079, 2022-Ohio-1279, ¶ 44; Scott at ¶ 10.
{¶7} “A jail term or sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor shall be served
consecutively to any other prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment when the
trial court specifies that it is to be served consecutively * * *, except that the aggregate
term to be served shall not exceed eighteen months.” R.C. 2929.41(B)(1). “The trial court
is not required to make consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) prior to
ordering consecutive sentences for jail terms imposed for misdemeanor offenses.” State
Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043 v. Henson, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2020-07-037, 2021-Ohio-38, ¶ 17. “The trial court
need only ‘specify’ that the jail terms being imposed were to be served consecutively.”
Id.
{¶8} “Misdemeanor sentencing lies within the discretion of the trial court and will
not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Hogya, 11th Dist. Lake Nos.
2022-L-058 and 2022-L-059, 2023-Ohio-342, ¶ 14; State v. Hill, 70 Ohio St.3d 25, 29,
635 N.E.2d 1248 (1994) (“as a general rule, an appellate court will not review a trial court’s
exercise of discretion in sentencing when the sentence is authorized by statute and is
within the statutory limits”).
{¶9} In the present case, the municipal court imposed the maximum sentence
for first-degree misdemeanors within the statutory limits and specified that the sentences
be served consecutively. R.C. 2929.24(A)(1) (“[f]or a misdemeanor of the first degree,
not more than one hundred eighty days”). There is no affirmative indication that the court
failed to abide by the appropriate sentencing considerations.
{¶10} Fromknecht also contends that his sentence was the product of vindictive
sentencing. His reliance on State v. Rahab, 150 Ohio St.3d 152, 2017-Ohio-1401, 80
N.E.3d 431, is misplaced inasmuch as Rahab involved vindictiveness in resentencing
after a successful appeal. Nonetheless, “[w]hen imposing sentence, courts must be
faithful to the law, must not be swayed by public clamor, media attention, fear of criticism,
or partisan interest, and must be mindful of the obligation to treat litigants and lawyers
with dignity and courtesy.” State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289, 2008-Ohio-2338, 888
N.E.2d 1073, ¶ 25.
Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043 {¶11} Fromknecht cites the following exchange from the sentencing hearing as
demonstrative of vindictiveness:
The Court: What’s amazing to me, Mr. Fromknecht, is that you find a new job, you become gainfully employed - - apparently, your employer, Premix, is happy with your performance there - -
Fromknecht: Yes, sir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Fromknecht, 2023-Ohio-4604.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2023-A-0041 CITY OF CONNEAUT, 2023-A-0043
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeals from the Conneaut Municipal Court - vs -
CHRISTOPHER FROMKNECHT, Trial Court Nos. 2023 CRB 00134 A 2023 CRB 00134 B Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: December 18, 2023 Judgment: Affirmed
John D. Lewis, Law Director, City of Conneaut, 294 Main Street, Conneaut, OH 44030 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Margaret Brunarski, Ashtabula County Public Defender, and Michael J. Ledenko, Assistant Public Defender, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Christopher Fromknecht, appeals his sentences for
Aggravated Menacing, Telecommunications Harassment, and a Probation Violation. For
the following reason, Fromknecht’s sentences are affirmed.
{¶2} On June 14, 2023, Fromknecht pled guilty to Aggravated Menacing, a
misdemeanor of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) (Conneaut Mun. No.
23CRB00134-A), and Telecommunications Harassment, a misdemeanor of the first
degree in violation of R.C. 2917.21(A)(1) (Conneaut Mun. No. 23CRB00135-C), and admitted a Probation Violation (Conneaut Mun. No. 23CRB00136). The municipal court
sentenced him to the maximum of 180 days in jail for Aggravated Menacing; the maximum
of 180 days in jail for Telecommunications Harassment; and for the Probation Violation a
jail sentence of 120 days and a suspended sentence of 180 days. The sentences were
ordered to be served consecutively and, for Conneaut Mun. Nos. 23CRB00134-A and
23CRB00135-C, were stayed pending appeal.
{¶3} Fromknecht filed timely Notices of Appeal. On appeal, he raises the
following assignment of error: “The trial court clearly and convincingly committed
prejudicial error that deprived Christopher Fromknecht of due process of law as
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article
One, Section Ten of the Ohio Constitution and violated Revised Code 2953.08 by
sentencing him to maximum and consecutive jail sentences.”
{¶4} Contrary to the assertions in the assignment of error, Fromknecht’s
convictions are misdemeanor convictions to which R.C. 2953.08 and case law relevant
to felony sentencing does not apply.
{¶5} “A court that sentences an offender for a misdemeanor * * * shall be guided
by the overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing.” R.C. 2929.21(A). “The
overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing are to protect the public from future
crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.” Id. “A sentence imposed
for a misdemeanor * * * shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the two overriding
purposes of misdemeanor sentencing * * *, commensurate with and not demeaning to the
seriousness of the offender’s conduct * * *, and consistent with sentences imposed for
similar offenses committed by similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.21(B). “In determining the
Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043 appropriate sentence for a misdemeanor, the court shall consider * * * [t]he nature and
circumstances of the offense” and “[w]hether the circumstances regarding the offender
and the offense * * * indicate that the offender has a history of persistent criminal activity
and that the offender’s character and condition reveal a substantial risk that the offender
will commit another offense.” R.C. 2929.22(B)(1)(a) and (b).
{¶6} “A court may impose the longest jail term authorized under section 2929.24
of the Revised Code only upon offenders who commit the worst forms of the offense or
upon offenders whose conduct and response to prior sanctions for prior offenses
demonstrate that the imposition of the longest jail term is necessary to deter the offender
from committing a future criminal offense.” R.C. 2929.22(C). “Although R.C. 2929.22(C),
identifies the circumstances under which a maximum sentence is permissible, it does not
require the trial court to make any explicit findings.” State v. Scott, 2023-Ohio-476, 208
N.E.3d 1038, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.). “[W]hen the misdemeanor offender’s sentence is within the
statutory limits and there is no affirmative indication on the record that the trial court failed
to consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22, the reviewing court is to presume the
trial court considered the applicable statutory factors when it imposed the sentence.”
State v. Corradetti, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2021-L-079, 2022-Ohio-1279, ¶ 44; Scott at ¶ 10.
{¶7} “A jail term or sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor shall be served
consecutively to any other prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment when the
trial court specifies that it is to be served consecutively * * *, except that the aggregate
term to be served shall not exceed eighteen months.” R.C. 2929.41(B)(1). “The trial court
is not required to make consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) prior to
ordering consecutive sentences for jail terms imposed for misdemeanor offenses.” State
Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043 v. Henson, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2020-07-037, 2021-Ohio-38, ¶ 17. “The trial court
need only ‘specify’ that the jail terms being imposed were to be served consecutively.”
Id.
{¶8} “Misdemeanor sentencing lies within the discretion of the trial court and will
not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Hogya, 11th Dist. Lake Nos.
2022-L-058 and 2022-L-059, 2023-Ohio-342, ¶ 14; State v. Hill, 70 Ohio St.3d 25, 29,
635 N.E.2d 1248 (1994) (“as a general rule, an appellate court will not review a trial court’s
exercise of discretion in sentencing when the sentence is authorized by statute and is
within the statutory limits”).
{¶9} In the present case, the municipal court imposed the maximum sentence
for first-degree misdemeanors within the statutory limits and specified that the sentences
be served consecutively. R.C. 2929.24(A)(1) (“[f]or a misdemeanor of the first degree,
not more than one hundred eighty days”). There is no affirmative indication that the court
failed to abide by the appropriate sentencing considerations.
{¶10} Fromknecht also contends that his sentence was the product of vindictive
sentencing. His reliance on State v. Rahab, 150 Ohio St.3d 152, 2017-Ohio-1401, 80
N.E.3d 431, is misplaced inasmuch as Rahab involved vindictiveness in resentencing
after a successful appeal. Nonetheless, “[w]hen imposing sentence, courts must be
faithful to the law, must not be swayed by public clamor, media attention, fear of criticism,
or partisan interest, and must be mindful of the obligation to treat litigants and lawyers
with dignity and courtesy.” State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289, 2008-Ohio-2338, 888
N.E.2d 1073, ¶ 25.
Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043 {¶11} Fromknecht cites the following exchange from the sentencing hearing as
demonstrative of vindictiveness:
The Court: What’s amazing to me, Mr. Fromknecht, is that you find a new job, you become gainfully employed - - apparently, your employer, Premix, is happy with your performance there - -
Fromknecht: Yes, sir.
The Court: - - and in the midst of all of it, you’re on probation, and you just neglect to follow through with the responsibilities that were imposed on you through probation; and then you not only neglect, you just defy a court order that has been previously imposed that you have no contact with Shawna Popka.
Fromknecht: I was told by Shawna - -
The Court: Shut up.
Fromknecht: All right, whatever.
The Court: I gave you an opportunity to speak.
Fromknecht: (Unintelligible) Shawna Popka there was no contact order.
Fromknecht: All right.
The Court: You’re going to listen to me now.
Fromknecht: Yep.
The Court: It - - it defies logic that you continue to defy a court order, and you shake your head as if you’ve done nothing wrong.
Fromknecht: I ain’t saying I haven’t done nothing wrong, Your Honor.
The Court: Okay.
Fromknecht: I’m saying (unintelligible).
The Court: I don’t want to hear from you. 5
Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043 Fromknecht: Okay.
The Court: The point of it is, you’ve been in this court I don’t know how many times - -
Fromknecht: Mm-hmm.
The Court: - - since I’ve been on the Bench. You’re a frequent flyer, and here we are again defying court orders, especially failing to get treatment and moving to what is another life with another job assuming everything else is going to be just fine.
{¶12} We do not find the foregoing to be demonstrative of vindictiveness but,
rather, the municipal court’s impatience with Fromknecht’s interruptions.
{¶13} The sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶14} For the foregoing reasons, Fromknecht’s sentences are affirmed. Costs to
be taxed against the appellant.
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
Case Nos. 2023-A-0041, 2023-A-0043