[Cite as State v. Haas, 2021-Ohio-2864.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio/City of Maumee Court of Appeals Nos. L-20-1197 L-20-1201 Appellee Trial Court Nos. 20CRB00385-A v.
David Haas DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: August 20, 2021
*****
Martha Schultes, Prosecuting Attorney.
David Haas, pro se.
DUHART, J.
{¶ 1} This is a delayed, consolidated and an accelerated appeal filed by appellant,
David Haas, from the August 19, 2020 judgment of the Maumee Municipal Court. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm. {¶ 2} Appellant sets forth one assignment of error:
The trial court was unreasonable in ordering that appellant have no
contact with Maumee because the order is overly broad and would infringe
on constitutionally protected action.
Background
{¶ 3} On May 19, 2020, a complaint was filed against appellant in Maumee
Municipal Court, case No. 20CRB00332, charging him with telecommunication
harassment in violation of R.C. 2917.21(A)(5), a first-degree misdemeanor. The
complaint alleged appellant “[d]id continue to call City of Maumee offices and
employees after being told to stop both verbally and by certified letter.”
{¶ 4} On June 8, 2020, a complaint was filed against appellant in Maumee
Municipal Court, case No. 20CRB00385, charging him with telecommunication
harassment in violation of R.C. 2917.21, a first-degree misdemeanor. The complaint
alleged that appellant “[a]fter receiving notification from Acting Law Director
prohibiting contact with City employees, called * * * [a]n employee in [the] Prosecutor’s
Office.”
{¶ 5} On June 22, 2020, an arraignment hearing was held on both cases, and
appellant, via counsel, entered not guilty pleas to both charges. The judge set “a personal
recognizance bond with a no contact order with the City of Maumee or any of its offices”
for each charge. Appellant executed an “Own Recognizance Bond Form and Release
2. Agreement” for each case. On each form, appellant was ordered to abide by certain
conditions including “[n]o contact with Maumee Court” and/or Maumee offices.
{¶ 6} On August 19, 2020, a pretrial conference was held, at which appellant was
represented by counsel. The prosecutor stated on the record:
It’s further agreed between the State and defense counsel that
[appellant] will be placed on a period of inactive probation for one year,
that he is not to come into this building or have any contact with anyone
within the building which encompasses the Court, the Clerk of Courts as
well as the City of Maumee administrative offices on the second floor.
The court asked appellant and his counsel if that was their understanding; both counsel
and appellant indicated it was. Appellant then entered a no contest plea, in case No.
20CRB00385, to the amended charge of criminal mischief in violation of R.C.
2909.07(A)(1), a third-degree misdemeanor. A finding of guilt was made. Case No.
20CRB00332 was dismissed, without costs. At sentencing that same day, appellant was
informed that he was “to have no contact with Maumee Municipal Court or city, no
phone calls.” Appellant acknowledged that he understood.
{¶ 7} In the August 19, 2020 judgment entry for case No. 20CRB00385, under the
section entitled “Jail,” it states, in pertinent part: “60 Days at the Corrections Center of
NW OH, 60 Days of are suspended[.]” In the section entitled “Probation Period 1 Years
and Conditions,” it states, in relevant part: “X Other: No contact w/ City of Maumee Staff
& Maumee Ct[.] Staff[,] Inactive Prob.” Appellant filed a delayed appeal.
3. Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} Appellant argues the trial court acted unreasonably in issuing a no contact
order which was overly broad and constitutionally impermissible. Appellant asserts the
trial court’s broad, sweeping order, made at appellant’s sentencing, infringes on his right
to speak freely. Appellant submits “perhaps a more narrowly crafted mandate” would not
infringe on his rights, but the order as it stands, will subject him to arrest and charges if
he directs symbolic or natural speech to Maumee or its employees, and could result in a
restraint on his liberty. In support of his arguments, appellant cites to the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, Article I, and several cases.
Appellant seeks to have the August 19, 2020 judgment reversed, and allow the trial court
to fashion a constitutionally permissible mandate.
{¶ 9} The state counters the parameters of the trial court’s order do not infringe on
appellant’s rights to travel through the city or conduct business within the city’s
boundaries. The state observes the “Judgment Entry from the Court filed August 19,
2020 ordered Appellant to a probation period of 1 year with the condition of ‘No Contact
with the City of Maumee staff and Maumee Court staff.’” The state maintains “[t]here is
nothing preventing Appellant from doing business with the Courts and the City via an
attorney.” The state further contends appellant has received multiple charges of
telephone harassment before and after the June 8, 2020 incident.
4. Analysis
{¶ 10} At the outset, we note appellant has characterized his assigned error as
having a constitutional basis, when, in fact, he is challenging the trial court’s sentence
and the conditions of his probation. “‘It is well settled that [appellate courts] will not
reach constitutional issues unless absolutely necessary.’” In re D.S., 152 Ohio St.3d 109,
2017-Ohio-8289, 93 N.E.3d 937, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177, 2004-
Ohio-4888, 814 N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 9. Therefore, an appellate court “should avoid reaching a
constitutional question when ‘other issues are apparent in the record which will dispose
of the case on its merits.’” In re D.S. at ¶ 7, quoting Greenhills Home Owners Corp. v.
Greenhills, 5 Ohio St.2d 207, 212, 215 N.E.2d 403 (1966). As such, we will only address
the matter of the trial court’s sentence.
{¶ 11} “[T]he law is well-settled that a trial court speaks through its journal
entries. State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-5705, 940 N.E.2d 924, ¶ 12.”
State v. Howe, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-20-008, 2021-Ohio-1676, ¶ 16. When devising a
misdemeanor sentence which is appropriate for the offender, a trial court has broad
discretion. R.C. 2929.22(A). The court “shall be 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.” R.C. 2929.21(A). In order to “achieve
those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the impact of the offense upon the
victim and the need for changing the offender’s behavior, rehabilitating the offender, and
5. making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or the victim and the public.”
Id.
{¶ 12} We review the trial court’s imposition of a misdemeanor sentence for an
abuse of discretion. Toledo v. Reasonover, 5 Ohio St.2d 22, 213 N.E.2d 179 (1965),
paragraph one of the syllabus.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Haas, 2021-Ohio-2864.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio/City of Maumee Court of Appeals Nos. L-20-1197 L-20-1201 Appellee Trial Court Nos. 20CRB00385-A v.
David Haas DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: August 20, 2021
*****
Martha Schultes, Prosecuting Attorney.
David Haas, pro se.
DUHART, J.
{¶ 1} This is a delayed, consolidated and an accelerated appeal filed by appellant,
David Haas, from the August 19, 2020 judgment of the Maumee Municipal Court. For
the reasons that follow, we affirm. {¶ 2} Appellant sets forth one assignment of error:
The trial court was unreasonable in ordering that appellant have no
contact with Maumee because the order is overly broad and would infringe
on constitutionally protected action.
Background
{¶ 3} On May 19, 2020, a complaint was filed against appellant in Maumee
Municipal Court, case No. 20CRB00332, charging him with telecommunication
harassment in violation of R.C. 2917.21(A)(5), a first-degree misdemeanor. The
complaint alleged appellant “[d]id continue to call City of Maumee offices and
employees after being told to stop both verbally and by certified letter.”
{¶ 4} On June 8, 2020, a complaint was filed against appellant in Maumee
Municipal Court, case No. 20CRB00385, charging him with telecommunication
harassment in violation of R.C. 2917.21, a first-degree misdemeanor. The complaint
alleged that appellant “[a]fter receiving notification from Acting Law Director
prohibiting contact with City employees, called * * * [a]n employee in [the] Prosecutor’s
Office.”
{¶ 5} On June 22, 2020, an arraignment hearing was held on both cases, and
appellant, via counsel, entered not guilty pleas to both charges. The judge set “a personal
recognizance bond with a no contact order with the City of Maumee or any of its offices”
for each charge. Appellant executed an “Own Recognizance Bond Form and Release
2. Agreement” for each case. On each form, appellant was ordered to abide by certain
conditions including “[n]o contact with Maumee Court” and/or Maumee offices.
{¶ 6} On August 19, 2020, a pretrial conference was held, at which appellant was
represented by counsel. The prosecutor stated on the record:
It’s further agreed between the State and defense counsel that
[appellant] will be placed on a period of inactive probation for one year,
that he is not to come into this building or have any contact with anyone
within the building which encompasses the Court, the Clerk of Courts as
well as the City of Maumee administrative offices on the second floor.
The court asked appellant and his counsel if that was their understanding; both counsel
and appellant indicated it was. Appellant then entered a no contest plea, in case No.
20CRB00385, to the amended charge of criminal mischief in violation of R.C.
2909.07(A)(1), a third-degree misdemeanor. A finding of guilt was made. Case No.
20CRB00332 was dismissed, without costs. At sentencing that same day, appellant was
informed that he was “to have no contact with Maumee Municipal Court or city, no
phone calls.” Appellant acknowledged that he understood.
{¶ 7} In the August 19, 2020 judgment entry for case No. 20CRB00385, under the
section entitled “Jail,” it states, in pertinent part: “60 Days at the Corrections Center of
NW OH, 60 Days of are suspended[.]” In the section entitled “Probation Period 1 Years
and Conditions,” it states, in relevant part: “X Other: No contact w/ City of Maumee Staff
& Maumee Ct[.] Staff[,] Inactive Prob.” Appellant filed a delayed appeal.
3. Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} Appellant argues the trial court acted unreasonably in issuing a no contact
order which was overly broad and constitutionally impermissible. Appellant asserts the
trial court’s broad, sweeping order, made at appellant’s sentencing, infringes on his right
to speak freely. Appellant submits “perhaps a more narrowly crafted mandate” would not
infringe on his rights, but the order as it stands, will subject him to arrest and charges if
he directs symbolic or natural speech to Maumee or its employees, and could result in a
restraint on his liberty. In support of his arguments, appellant cites to the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, Article I, and several cases.
Appellant seeks to have the August 19, 2020 judgment reversed, and allow the trial court
to fashion a constitutionally permissible mandate.
{¶ 9} The state counters the parameters of the trial court’s order do not infringe on
appellant’s rights to travel through the city or conduct business within the city’s
boundaries. The state observes the “Judgment Entry from the Court filed August 19,
2020 ordered Appellant to a probation period of 1 year with the condition of ‘No Contact
with the City of Maumee staff and Maumee Court staff.’” The state maintains “[t]here is
nothing preventing Appellant from doing business with the Courts and the City via an
attorney.” The state further contends appellant has received multiple charges of
telephone harassment before and after the June 8, 2020 incident.
4. Analysis
{¶ 10} At the outset, we note appellant has characterized his assigned error as
having a constitutional basis, when, in fact, he is challenging the trial court’s sentence
and the conditions of his probation. “‘It is well settled that [appellate courts] will not
reach constitutional issues unless absolutely necessary.’” In re D.S., 152 Ohio St.3d 109,
2017-Ohio-8289, 93 N.E.3d 937, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177, 2004-
Ohio-4888, 814 N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 9. Therefore, an appellate court “should avoid reaching a
constitutional question when ‘other issues are apparent in the record which will dispose
of the case on its merits.’” In re D.S. at ¶ 7, quoting Greenhills Home Owners Corp. v.
Greenhills, 5 Ohio St.2d 207, 212, 215 N.E.2d 403 (1966). As such, we will only address
the matter of the trial court’s sentence.
{¶ 11} “[T]he law is well-settled that a trial court speaks through its journal
entries. State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-5705, 940 N.E.2d 924, ¶ 12.”
State v. Howe, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-20-008, 2021-Ohio-1676, ¶ 16. When devising a
misdemeanor sentence which is appropriate for the offender, a trial court has broad
discretion. R.C. 2929.22(A). The court “shall be 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.” R.C. 2929.21(A). In order to “achieve
those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the impact of the offense upon the
victim and the need for changing the offender’s behavior, rehabilitating the offender, and
5. making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or the victim and the public.”
Id.
{¶ 12} We review the trial court’s imposition of a misdemeanor sentence for an
abuse of discretion. Toledo v. Reasonover, 5 Ohio St.2d 22, 213 N.E.2d 179 (1965),
paragraph one of the syllabus. A court does not abuse its discretion if the “sentence
imposed is within the limits authorized by the applicable ordinance and statutes.” Id. An
abuse of discretion means the trial court’s attitude was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140
(1983).
{¶ 13} Here, the record shows appellant was sentenced to, inter alia, probation for
a term of one year, which included the conditions that he have no contact with city of
Maumee staff and Maumee Municipal Court staff. This was the sentence agreed upon
between the state and appellant, as a result of plea negotiations. The sentence was
imposed after appellant accepted a plea offer wherein he agreed not to have contact with
anyone in the Maumee court, clerk of courts and city administrative offices, and the state
amended the charge from telecommunication harassment, a first-degree misdemeanor, to
criminal mischief, a third-degree misdemeanor.
{¶ 14} Based on the record and the applicable law, we find appellant’s
misdemeanor sentence, specifically the no contact provision of his probation, is within
the limits authorized by the applicable ordinance and statute. We further find that under
the circumstances, the no contact provision is reasonable in scope and length, as it
6. protects the staff of the city of Maumee and Maumee Municipal Court from future
telecommunication harassment by appellant, and it punishes appellant.
{¶ 15} While we are aware that appellant suggested a more narrowly crafted
mandate could have been implemented, we find the trial court’s no contact provision, as a
condition of appellant’s probation, is not overly broad nor is it unlawful. In addition, it is
a condition to which appellant agreed when he entered his no contest plea. We therefore
conclude the trial court’s attitude was not arbitrary, unconscionable or inappropriate, and
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing appellant’s sentence. Accordingly,
appellant’s assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 16} The judgment of the Maumee Municipal Court is affirmed. Appellant is
ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. _______________________________ Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
7.