Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

City of Strongsville v. Alnardo Feliciano

October 20, 2011

CITY OF STRONGSVILLE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
ALNARDO FELICIANO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



Criminal Appeal from the Berea Municipal Court Case No. 10 CRB 00688

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eileen A. Gallagher, J.:

Cite as Strongsville v. Feliciano,

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED

BEFORE: E. Gallagher, J., Blackmon, P.J., and Sweeney, J.

{¶1} This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11 and Loc.R. 11.1.

{¶2} Defendant-appellant, Alnardo Feliciano, appeals his sentence from the Berea Municipal Court. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

{¶3} Appellant was charged with domestic violence against his wife on June 11, 2010, in the city of Strongsville. The trial court issued an order of protection in favor of appellant's wife on June 16, 2010, and appellant, through that order, was required to wear a GPS monitoring device during the pendency of the case.*fn1 On October 13, 2010, appellant pled guilty to an amended charge of disorderly conduct in violation of R.C. 2917.11, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. Appellant was sentenced on December 3, 2010, at which time he was fined $250 and sentenced to 15 days in jail with credit for time served. The trial court also imposed one year of community control sanctions with conditions only the following of which are relevant to the present appeal: that appellant take and pass random drug and alcohol tests as ordered by the probation department; that appellant complete a drug and mental health assessment and follow all recommendations; and that appellant stay away from his wife.

{¶4} Appellant brought the present appeal, advancing two assignments of error pertaining to his community control sanctions for our review. Appellant's first assignment of error states:

{¶5} "The lower court abused its discretion in ordering defendant to have a drug and alcohol assessment performed and in ordering random drug and alcohol testing when no alcohol or drugs were involved in the underlying crime."

{¶6} A trial court is vested with broad discretion in imposing community-control sanctions and will not be subject to reversal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177, 2004-Ohio-4888, 814 N.E.2d 1201.

"The term 'abuse of discretion' connotes more than error of law or judgment. It implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 5 OBR 481, 450 N.E.2d 1140. A court's discretion in imposing such conditions is not, however, limitless. Talty at ¶11., citing State v. Jones (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 52, 550 N.E.2d 469. Conditions may not be imposed that are so overly broad as to unnecessarily impinge upon the probationer's liberty. Id. at 180. Further, conditions should be imposed in the interests of rehabilitating the offender, administering justice, and ensuring the offender's good behavior. Id. at 181.

{ΒΆ7} When reviewing community control sanctions, we consider whether the condition imposed, "(1) is reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender, (2) has some relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, and (3) relates to conduct which is criminal or reasonably related to future criminality and serves the statutory ends of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.