[Cite as State v. Platfoot, 2024-Ohio-2681.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SHELBY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 17-23-19
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DUSTIN S. PLATFOOT, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Sidney Municipal Court Trial Court No. 23CRB00143
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: July 15, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Scott A. Kelly for Appellant
David M. Busick for Appellee Case No. 17-23-19
MILLER, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Dustin Platfoot (“Platfoot”), appeals the October
19, 2023 sentencing order issued by the Municipal Court of Sidney, Ohio. Platfoot
contends the trial court abused its discretion by allegedly failing to consider the
purposes of misdemeanor sentencing under R.C. 2929.21. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} Platfoot was originally charged with domestic violence stemming from
an incident on March 29, 2023 where he allegedly choked his fiancée.
Subsequently, on October 19, 2023, he accepted a negotiated plea of no-contest to
an amended charge of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13, a first-degree
misdemeanor. The trial court accepted the no-contest plea and found from the facts
in the complaint that Platfoot was guilty of the assault charge. The trial court then
ordered a presentence investigation be prepared by the probation department.
{¶3} Later that same day, after the presentence investigation was completed,
the trial court conducted the sentencing hearing. At the hearing, the judge explained
he had now received and reviewed the presentence investigation report. Among the
items addressed in the report were Platfoot’s prior criminal record, his substance
abuse treatment history, a statement from Platfoot regarding the offense, a victim
impact statement, and that restitution was inapplicable. Platfoot’s prior record
-2- Case No. 17-23-19
included both felony and misdemeanor convictions. Importantly, he was presently
on probation and had an upcoming probation violation hearing.
{¶4} During the sentencing hearing, the trial court referenced that the report
indicated Platfoot lacked remorse and refused to take ownership for his actions and
that the victim had said she experienced trauma from the incident. Defense counsel
also read a letter from Platfoot’s work supervisor in support of Platfoot, which the
trial court considered. The trial court further said it “has to consider the fact that
[Platfoot] was asked to take a drug screening test today, and he’s admitted to the
probation department and the presentence investigation writer that he didn’t want to
do that because he was – he would be positive for methamphetamine and
amphetamine.” (Sentencing Tr. at 13). The trial court said “[a]ll of these factors
weigh into” its sentencing decision, including “the mitigating factors” presented by
Platfoot. (Id.).
{¶5} While acknowledging the recommendation in the presentence
investigation report was to sentence Platfoot to 180 days in jail, the trial court
sentenced him to 120 days in jail (with credit for three days served), a $50 fine, and
costs. The trial court’s written order indicated it “has considered the criteria as set
forth in ORC 2929.22.” (Oct. 19, 2023 Entry and Order). This appeal followed.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶6} Platfoot raises a single assignment of error for our review:
-3- Case No. 17-23-19
Assignment of Error
Appellant’s sentencing of 120 days of jail was abuse of discretion of the presiding judge in the trial court as the court failed to consider the purposes of misdemeanor sentencing under O.R.C. 2929.21.
III. DISCUSSION
{¶7} In the assignment of error, Platfoot appeals the duration of his sentence.
Platfoot acknowledges the trial court “considered the statements of the Defendant
and his counsel as well as the pre-sentence investigation” at the sentencing hearing,
but complains the court did not consider the purposes of misdemeanor sentencing
under Ohio law, specifically R.C. 2929.21. (Appellant’s Brief at 3-4). Therefore,
according to Platfoot, the trial court abused its discretion and contends we should
reverse its sentencing decision.
A. Standard of Review
{¶8} We review a trial court’s sentence on a misdemeanor violation under an
abuse of discretion standard. State v. Hittle, 2019-Ohio-5172, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.). “An
abuse of discretion is more than a mere error in judgment; it suggests that a decision
is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Id., citing State v. Adams, 62 Ohio
St.2d 151, 157-158 (1980).
B. Applicable Law
{¶9} A trial court is required to consider the sentencing principles of R.C.
2929.21 and the criteria of R.C. 2929.22 before imposing a misdemeanor sentence.
Hittle at ¶ 9. Pursuant to R.C. 2929.21, a court sentencing an offender for a
-4- Case No. 17-23-19
misdemeanor violation “shall be guided by the overriding principles of
misdemeanor sentencing.” R.C. 2929.21(A). The statute further provides:
(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. 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 making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or the victim and the public.
(B) 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 its impact upon the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar offenses committed by similar offenders.
R.C. 2929.21(A), (B). The next statutory section, R.C. 2929.22, sets forth factors
and other items the court shall consider in determining the appropriate sentence for
a misdemeanor. See R.C. 2929.22(B), (C), (D).
{¶10} When the sentence is within the statutory limits and there is no
affirmative showing that the trial court failed to consider the applicable statutory
factors, “we presume that the trial court properly considered the criteria set forth in
R.C. 2929.22 and determined that the sentence imposed is reasonably calculated to
achieve the overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing set forth in R.C.
2929.21.” Hittle at ¶ 11-12; see also State v. Dennison, 2012-Ohio-1988, ¶ 65 (6th
Dist.) (“[w]hen a trial court imposes a sentence for a misdemeanor within the
statutorily authorized range of sentences for the offense, a reviewing court will
-5- Case No. 17-23-19
presume the trial court complied with R.C. 2929.21 and R.C. 2929.22, absent
evidence to the contrary”).
C. Analysis
{¶11} Platfoot complains that the trial court did not “reference even
considering the purposes of misdemeanor sentencing.” (Appellant’s Brief at 3-4).
However, a trial court is not required to place on the record “the consideration and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Platfoot, 2024-Ohio-2681.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SHELBY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 17-23-19
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DUSTIN S. PLATFOOT, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Sidney Municipal Court Trial Court No. 23CRB00143
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: July 15, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Scott A. Kelly for Appellant
David M. Busick for Appellee Case No. 17-23-19
MILLER, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Dustin Platfoot (“Platfoot”), appeals the October
19, 2023 sentencing order issued by the Municipal Court of Sidney, Ohio. Platfoot
contends the trial court abused its discretion by allegedly failing to consider the
purposes of misdemeanor sentencing under R.C. 2929.21. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} Platfoot was originally charged with domestic violence stemming from
an incident on March 29, 2023 where he allegedly choked his fiancée.
Subsequently, on October 19, 2023, he accepted a negotiated plea of no-contest to
an amended charge of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13, a first-degree
misdemeanor. The trial court accepted the no-contest plea and found from the facts
in the complaint that Platfoot was guilty of the assault charge. The trial court then
ordered a presentence investigation be prepared by the probation department.
{¶3} Later that same day, after the presentence investigation was completed,
the trial court conducted the sentencing hearing. At the hearing, the judge explained
he had now received and reviewed the presentence investigation report. Among the
items addressed in the report were Platfoot’s prior criminal record, his substance
abuse treatment history, a statement from Platfoot regarding the offense, a victim
impact statement, and that restitution was inapplicable. Platfoot’s prior record
-2- Case No. 17-23-19
included both felony and misdemeanor convictions. Importantly, he was presently
on probation and had an upcoming probation violation hearing.
{¶4} During the sentencing hearing, the trial court referenced that the report
indicated Platfoot lacked remorse and refused to take ownership for his actions and
that the victim had said she experienced trauma from the incident. Defense counsel
also read a letter from Platfoot’s work supervisor in support of Platfoot, which the
trial court considered. The trial court further said it “has to consider the fact that
[Platfoot] was asked to take a drug screening test today, and he’s admitted to the
probation department and the presentence investigation writer that he didn’t want to
do that because he was – he would be positive for methamphetamine and
amphetamine.” (Sentencing Tr. at 13). The trial court said “[a]ll of these factors
weigh into” its sentencing decision, including “the mitigating factors” presented by
Platfoot. (Id.).
{¶5} While acknowledging the recommendation in the presentence
investigation report was to sentence Platfoot to 180 days in jail, the trial court
sentenced him to 120 days in jail (with credit for three days served), a $50 fine, and
costs. The trial court’s written order indicated it “has considered the criteria as set
forth in ORC 2929.22.” (Oct. 19, 2023 Entry and Order). This appeal followed.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶6} Platfoot raises a single assignment of error for our review:
-3- Case No. 17-23-19
Assignment of Error
Appellant’s sentencing of 120 days of jail was abuse of discretion of the presiding judge in the trial court as the court failed to consider the purposes of misdemeanor sentencing under O.R.C. 2929.21.
III. DISCUSSION
{¶7} In the assignment of error, Platfoot appeals the duration of his sentence.
Platfoot acknowledges the trial court “considered the statements of the Defendant
and his counsel as well as the pre-sentence investigation” at the sentencing hearing,
but complains the court did not consider the purposes of misdemeanor sentencing
under Ohio law, specifically R.C. 2929.21. (Appellant’s Brief at 3-4). Therefore,
according to Platfoot, the trial court abused its discretion and contends we should
reverse its sentencing decision.
A. Standard of Review
{¶8} We review a trial court’s sentence on a misdemeanor violation under an
abuse of discretion standard. State v. Hittle, 2019-Ohio-5172, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.). “An
abuse of discretion is more than a mere error in judgment; it suggests that a decision
is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” Id., citing State v. Adams, 62 Ohio
St.2d 151, 157-158 (1980).
B. Applicable Law
{¶9} A trial court is required to consider the sentencing principles of R.C.
2929.21 and the criteria of R.C. 2929.22 before imposing a misdemeanor sentence.
Hittle at ¶ 9. Pursuant to R.C. 2929.21, a court sentencing an offender for a
-4- Case No. 17-23-19
misdemeanor violation “shall be guided by the overriding principles of
misdemeanor sentencing.” R.C. 2929.21(A). The statute further provides:
(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. 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 making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or the victim and the public.
(B) 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 its impact upon the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar offenses committed by similar offenders.
R.C. 2929.21(A), (B). The next statutory section, R.C. 2929.22, sets forth factors
and other items the court shall consider in determining the appropriate sentence for
a misdemeanor. See R.C. 2929.22(B), (C), (D).
{¶10} When the sentence is within the statutory limits and there is no
affirmative showing that the trial court failed to consider the applicable statutory
factors, “we presume that the trial court properly considered the criteria set forth in
R.C. 2929.22 and determined that the sentence imposed is reasonably calculated to
achieve the overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing set forth in R.C.
2929.21.” Hittle at ¶ 11-12; see also State v. Dennison, 2012-Ohio-1988, ¶ 65 (6th
Dist.) (“[w]hen a trial court imposes a sentence for a misdemeanor within the
statutorily authorized range of sentences for the offense, a reviewing court will
-5- Case No. 17-23-19
presume the trial court complied with R.C. 2929.21 and R.C. 2929.22, absent
evidence to the contrary”).
C. Analysis
{¶11} Platfoot complains that the trial court did not “reference even
considering the purposes of misdemeanor sentencing.” (Appellant’s Brief at 3-4).
However, a trial court is not required to place on the record “the consideration and
weight of any factor” for misdemeanor sentencing under R.C. 2929.21 or 2929.22.
State v. O’Malley, 2022-Ohio-3207, ¶ 75. The trial court also is not required to state
its reasons on the record when sentencing on misdemeanor offenses. State v.
Maggette, 2016-Ohio-5554, ¶ 35 (3d Dist.).
{¶12} We can presume the trial court complied with R.C. 2929.21. First, the
sentence imposed for the assault charge was within the sentencing range for first
degree misdemeanors. R.C. 2929.24(A)(1). The trial court sentenced Platfoot to
120 days in jail. Second, Platfoot has not affirmatively shown that the trial court
failed to consider the purposes and principles of misdemeanor sentencing under
R.C. 2929.21.
{¶13} In fact, it is unnecessary for us to afford the presumption of correctness
to the trial court considering and applying R.C. 2929.21 in this case. “[T]he
transcript of [Platfoot’s] sentencing reflects that the municipal court considered the
purposes of misdemeanor sentencing, both protective and punitive, and the need for
altering [Platfoot’s] behavior.” State v. Collins, 2005-Ohio-4755, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.)
(rejecting argument that trial court erred in sentencing by not following R.C.
-6- Case No. 17-23-19
2929.21). The record shows the trial court ordered, reviewed, and considered the
presentence investigation prior to sentencing. As in Collins, the trial court here
reviewed Platfoot’s past criminal record and his substance abuse treatment history,
which were contained in the report. Id.; see also State v. Cooper, 2016-Ohio-4730,
¶ 13-14 (11th Dist.) (rejecting defendant’s argument that the trial court failed to
consider the sentencing criteria in R.C. 2929.21, where the trial court reviewed a
presentence investigation report prior to sentencing and made statements based on
the report). The record also shows the trial court considered “the impact of the
offense upon the victim,” as well as the need to change Platfoot’s behavior and
rehabilitate him. R.C. 2929.21(A). In short, it is apparent the trial court was guided
by the overriding principles and purposes of misdemeanor sentencing.
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶14} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s assignment of error is
overruled. Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Municipal Court of Sidney,
Ohio.
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and WALDICK, J., concur.
/jlm
-7-