[Cite as Zinni v. Scarberry, 2026-Ohio-869.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
FAYETTE COUNTY
RUTH ANN ZINNI nka ROBINSON, : et al., CASE NOS. CA2025-06-011 : CA2025-06-012 Appellees, CA2025-06-013 : CA2025-06-014 vs. : OPINION AND MATTHEW C. SCARBERRY, JUDGMENT ENTRY : 3/16/2026 Appellant. :
CIVIL APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 11AD0493
Ruth Ann Zinni nka Robinson, pro se.
Shirley L. Hummer, pro se.
Jess C. Weade, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrea M. VanFossen, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee, Fayette County CSEA.
Shannon M. Treynor, for appellant.
____________ OPINION
SIEBERT, J. Fayette CA2025-06-011 thru 014
{¶ 1} Appellant, Matthew Scarberry ("Father"), appeals from several orders
issued by the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, finding him in
contempt for failing to pay child support. After reviewing the record, we conclude that
Father's assignments of error lack merit. The civil contempt sanctions imposed were not
criminal in nature, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a 240-day jail
sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} This consolidated appeal concerns Father's four children—two with Shirley
Hummer (Case Nos. AD20090590 and AD20090591 – the "Hummer Cases") and two
with Ruth Zinni (Case Nos. AD20110493 and AD20110494 – the "Zinni Cases"). Father
has a long history of failing to comply with his child-support obligations and has been the
subject of multiple bench warrants due to repeated failures to appear for scheduled court
proceedings.
{¶ 3} It is undisputed that he has previously been found in contempt for
nonpayment of support. On March 31, 2015, the trial court found him in contempt in all
four cases. He was subsequently ordered to serve 30 days in jail in relation to the Zinni
Cases, to be served consecutively to an additional 30-day jail sentence imposed in the
Hummer Cases.
{¶ 4} On February 16, 2023, the Fayette County Child Support Enforcement
Agency ("CSEA") filed new motions for contempt, alleging that Father had again failed to
pay his court-ordered support, a second offense in each case. The trial court scheduled
a hearing on the motions for April 19, 2023. Father failed to appear, and the trial court
issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
{¶ 5} Father was later arrested and appeared before the court on August 30,
2023. During that hearing, he admitted that he had not paid his support obligations and
-2- Fayette CA2025-06-011 thru 014
conceded that he had no valid excuse, attributing his noncompliance to his own poor
decisions. Father testified that he had recently been released from jail, acknowledged his
struggle with drug addiction, and stated that he was currently sober. He also represented
that he had been employed by Precision Fixture Installation for approximately four
months.
{¶ 6} Following the hearing, the trial court found Father in contempt for a second
time in each case and imposed a 60-day jail sentence in each matter, to be served
consecutively, for a total of 240 days. The court suspended the sentences on condition
that Father comply with his child-support obligations and permitted him to purge the
contempt by remaining current on his support payments for a period of 12 months.
{¶ 7} The matter proceeded to a review hearing on January 29, 2024. Father
again failed to appear, prompting the trial court to issue another bench warrant. Father
was eventually apprehended, and on May 15, 2025, appeared before the trial court for a
hearing. At that hearing, the CSEA informed the court that Father had not been employed
by Precision Fixture Installation as he previously claimed and had not made the required
support payments. Father confirmed that he had failed to make the payments and stated
that although he was now employed, he had not been able to arrange for wage
withholding for unspecified reasons.
{¶ 8} Based on the evidence presented, the trial court found that Father failed to
comply with the purge conditions and imposed the previously suspended 240-day jail
sentence. Father now appeals, raising two assignments of error for review.
Appeal
Double Jeopardy and R.C. 2941.25(A)
{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court erred by
imposing four separate contempt sentences. He contends that he should have been
-3- Fayette CA2025-06-011 thru 014
sentenced on only one count of contempt, punishable by a maximum of 60 days in jail.
According to Father, the four contempt findings should have merged pursuant to R.C.
2941.25(A), and the imposition of four consecutive 60-day sentences violated the
constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense.
{¶ 10} The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Section 10, Article I, of the Ohio Constitution protect individuals against
successive prosecutions or multiple punishments for the same offense. State v. Lovejoy,
1997-Ohio-371, ¶ 11-12; State v. Hartsook, 2014-Ohio-4528, ¶ 33 (12th Dist.). See State
v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio-995, ¶ 13 (explaining that R.C. 2941.25[A] permits only a single
conviction for conduct constituting "allied offenses of similar import."). These protections
apply to contempt proceedings, but only when the contempt at issue is criminal in nature.
Gregory v. Gregory, 2008-Ohio-6760, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 11} Whether contempt is civil or criminal depends on the character and purpose
of the sanction imposed. Id. at ¶ 27. Although fines or imprisonment may be imposed in
either context, civil contempt sanctions are remedial and coercive, designed to compel
compliance with a court order. A civil sanction must afford the contemnor an opportunity
to purge the contempt, and the sanction terminates once the contemnor complies. Id. "In
this way, a party convicted of civil contempt 'is said to carry the keys of his prison in his
own pocket . . . since he will be freed if he agrees to do as ordered.'" Ruben v. Ruben,
2013-Ohio-3924, ¶ 36 (10th Dist.), quoting Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136, 139 (1984).
{¶ 12} Here, the trial court's contempt findings for Father's failure to pay child
support were civil in nature. The court suspended Father's jail sentences and expressly
provided him with an opportunity to purge the contempt by complying with his ongoing
support obligations. Because the sanctions were coercive, conditional, and designed to
compel compliance rather than to punish past conduct, the contempt was civil and not
-4- Fayette CA2025-06-011 thru 014
criminal. As a result, neither R.C. 2941.25(A), nor the Double Jeopardy Clause are
implicated. Moreover, even if they did, merger would still be inappropriate. It is well
established that offenses are not considered allied when they involve different victims or
when the harm resulting from each offense is separate and identifiable. State v. Penwell,
2017-Ohio-7465, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.). That principle applies here. Each contempt finding
corresponded to a separate child-support case involving a different child, resulting in
distinct harms and independent obligations. Accordingly, even under a criminal-law
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Zinni v. Scarberry, 2026-Ohio-869.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
FAYETTE COUNTY
RUTH ANN ZINNI nka ROBINSON, : et al., CASE NOS. CA2025-06-011 : CA2025-06-012 Appellees, CA2025-06-013 : CA2025-06-014 vs. : OPINION AND MATTHEW C. SCARBERRY, JUDGMENT ENTRY : 3/16/2026 Appellant. :
CIVIL APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No. 11AD0493
Ruth Ann Zinni nka Robinson, pro se.
Shirley L. Hummer, pro se.
Jess C. Weade, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrea M. VanFossen, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee, Fayette County CSEA.
Shannon M. Treynor, for appellant.
____________ OPINION
SIEBERT, J. Fayette CA2025-06-011 thru 014
{¶ 1} Appellant, Matthew Scarberry ("Father"), appeals from several orders
issued by the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, finding him in
contempt for failing to pay child support. After reviewing the record, we conclude that
Father's assignments of error lack merit. The civil contempt sanctions imposed were not
criminal in nature, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a 240-day jail
sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} This consolidated appeal concerns Father's four children—two with Shirley
Hummer (Case Nos. AD20090590 and AD20090591 – the "Hummer Cases") and two
with Ruth Zinni (Case Nos. AD20110493 and AD20110494 – the "Zinni Cases"). Father
has a long history of failing to comply with his child-support obligations and has been the
subject of multiple bench warrants due to repeated failures to appear for scheduled court
proceedings.
{¶ 3} It is undisputed that he has previously been found in contempt for
nonpayment of support. On March 31, 2015, the trial court found him in contempt in all
four cases. He was subsequently ordered to serve 30 days in jail in relation to the Zinni
Cases, to be served consecutively to an additional 30-day jail sentence imposed in the
Hummer Cases.
{¶ 4} On February 16, 2023, the Fayette County Child Support Enforcement
Agency ("CSEA") filed new motions for contempt, alleging that Father had again failed to
pay his court-ordered support, a second offense in each case. The trial court scheduled
a hearing on the motions for April 19, 2023. Father failed to appear, and the trial court
issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
{¶ 5} Father was later arrested and appeared before the court on August 30,
2023. During that hearing, he admitted that he had not paid his support obligations and
-2- Fayette CA2025-06-011 thru 014
conceded that he had no valid excuse, attributing his noncompliance to his own poor
decisions. Father testified that he had recently been released from jail, acknowledged his
struggle with drug addiction, and stated that he was currently sober. He also represented
that he had been employed by Precision Fixture Installation for approximately four
months.
{¶ 6} Following the hearing, the trial court found Father in contempt for a second
time in each case and imposed a 60-day jail sentence in each matter, to be served
consecutively, for a total of 240 days. The court suspended the sentences on condition
that Father comply with his child-support obligations and permitted him to purge the
contempt by remaining current on his support payments for a period of 12 months.
{¶ 7} The matter proceeded to a review hearing on January 29, 2024. Father
again failed to appear, prompting the trial court to issue another bench warrant. Father
was eventually apprehended, and on May 15, 2025, appeared before the trial court for a
hearing. At that hearing, the CSEA informed the court that Father had not been employed
by Precision Fixture Installation as he previously claimed and had not made the required
support payments. Father confirmed that he had failed to make the payments and stated
that although he was now employed, he had not been able to arrange for wage
withholding for unspecified reasons.
{¶ 8} Based on the evidence presented, the trial court found that Father failed to
comply with the purge conditions and imposed the previously suspended 240-day jail
sentence. Father now appeals, raising two assignments of error for review.
Appeal
Double Jeopardy and R.C. 2941.25(A)
{¶ 9} In his first assignment of error, Father argues that the trial court erred by
imposing four separate contempt sentences. He contends that he should have been
-3- Fayette CA2025-06-011 thru 014
sentenced on only one count of contempt, punishable by a maximum of 60 days in jail.
According to Father, the four contempt findings should have merged pursuant to R.C.
2941.25(A), and the imposition of four consecutive 60-day sentences violated the
constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense.
{¶ 10} The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Section 10, Article I, of the Ohio Constitution protect individuals against
successive prosecutions or multiple punishments for the same offense. State v. Lovejoy,
1997-Ohio-371, ¶ 11-12; State v. Hartsook, 2014-Ohio-4528, ¶ 33 (12th Dist.). See State
v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio-995, ¶ 13 (explaining that R.C. 2941.25[A] permits only a single
conviction for conduct constituting "allied offenses of similar import."). These protections
apply to contempt proceedings, but only when the contempt at issue is criminal in nature.
Gregory v. Gregory, 2008-Ohio-6760, ¶ 26 (12th Dist.).
{¶ 11} Whether contempt is civil or criminal depends on the character and purpose
of the sanction imposed. Id. at ¶ 27. Although fines or imprisonment may be imposed in
either context, civil contempt sanctions are remedial and coercive, designed to compel
compliance with a court order. A civil sanction must afford the contemnor an opportunity
to purge the contempt, and the sanction terminates once the contemnor complies. Id. "In
this way, a party convicted of civil contempt 'is said to carry the keys of his prison in his
own pocket . . . since he will be freed if he agrees to do as ordered.'" Ruben v. Ruben,
2013-Ohio-3924, ¶ 36 (10th Dist.), quoting Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136, 139 (1984).
{¶ 12} Here, the trial court's contempt findings for Father's failure to pay child
support were civil in nature. The court suspended Father's jail sentences and expressly
provided him with an opportunity to purge the contempt by complying with his ongoing
support obligations. Because the sanctions were coercive, conditional, and designed to
compel compliance rather than to punish past conduct, the contempt was civil and not
-4- Fayette CA2025-06-011 thru 014
criminal. As a result, neither R.C. 2941.25(A), nor the Double Jeopardy Clause are
implicated. Moreover, even if they did, merger would still be inappropriate. It is well
established that offenses are not considered allied when they involve different victims or
when the harm resulting from each offense is separate and identifiable. State v. Penwell,
2017-Ohio-7465, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.). That principle applies here. Each contempt finding
corresponded to a separate child-support case involving a different child, resulting in
distinct harms and independent obligations. Accordingly, even under a criminal-law
analysis, the four contempt findings would not merge.
{¶ 13} Father's first assignment of error is therefore without merit and overruled.
240-day Sentence
{¶ 14} In his second assignment of error, Father argues the trial court erred by
imposing maximum, consecutive contempt sentences. Once a party is found in contempt,
the trial court may impose any of the penalties set forth in R.C. 2705.05(A)(1)-(3):
(1) For a first offense, a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars, a definite term of imprisonment of not more than thirty days in jail, or both;
(2) For a second offense, a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, a definite term of imprisonment of not more than sixty days in jail, or both;
(3) For a third or subsequent offense, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, a definite term of imprisonment of not more than ninety days in jail, or both.
{¶ 15} An appellate court reviews a finding of contempt, including the imposition of
penalties, for an abuse of discretion. Mackowiak v. Mackowiak, 2011-Ohio-3013, ¶ 45
(12th Dist.). An abuse of discretion implies that the trial court's attitude was unreasonable,
arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore, v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
This standard is highly deferential and recognizes that the trial judge is in the best position
to assess credibility, having observed the witnesses' demeanor, gestures, and attitude.
-5- Fayette CA2025-06-011 thru 014
In re C.L.W., 2024-Ohio-1519, ¶ 52 (12th Dist.). See also In re A.C.F., 2023-Ohio-3296,
¶ 12 (12th Dist.) (noting that most claims asserting an abuse of discretion challenge the
reasonableness of the decision, that is, whether it is supported by sound reasoning).
{¶ 16} Upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the 240-day jail term. The record demonstrates that Father has a long-standing
pattern of failing to comply with his support obligations and repeatedly failing to appear
for court proceedings. The trial court expressly warned Father that it would impose the
240-day sentence if he failed to comply with the purge conditions set forth in its entry.
When Father did not meet those conditions, the court imposed the previously announced
sentence. In doing so, the court found that Father had been employed but failed to report
his employment to CSEA and failed to make any payment toward his support obligations.
These findings are supported by competent, credible evidence.
{¶ 17} Moreover, although Father references R.C. 2929.14(C), regarding the
imposition of prison terms, and briefly alludes to the findings required when a court
imposes consecutive sentences in criminal cases, he provides no authority supporting its
applicability in this matter. Indeed, he acknowledges that there is "no caselaw" addressing
whether a trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C) findings in civil contempt proceedings.
As explained in the first assignment of error, the contempt at issue here was civil in nature,
and R.C. 2929.14(C) applies only to consecutive prison terms imposed in criminal cases.
Father was not sentenced to prison.
{¶ 18} Accordingly, Father's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 19} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
-6- Fayette CA2025-06-011 thru 014
JUDGMENT ENTRY
The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.
/s/ Robert A. Hendrickson, Presiding Judge
/s/ Mike Powell, Judge
/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge
-7-