FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 2014 TR-C 010420
APPEARANCES: THOMAS M. DICAUDO and BENJAMIN R. SORBER,
Attorneys at Law, for Appellant.
R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
J. CARR Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Justin Goudy appeals from the judgment of
the Wayne County Municipal Court. This Court affirms.
On December 20, 2014, Goudy was stopped by the Ohio State
Highway Patrol. The trooper noted an odor of alcohol coming
from the vehicle and Goudy admitted to consuming a couple of
beers. Goudy exhibited several clues on field sobriety tests
and was arrested. Goudy refused to submit to a breath test;
however, a blood test was obtained. The blood test results
indicated that Goudy's blood alcohol concentration was
Goudy was charged with violating RC. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), RC.
4511.19(A)(1)(f), RC. 4511.19(A)(2), RC. 4511.25, and RC.
4511.12. Ultimately, Goudy entered a no contest plea to
violating R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) (driving under the influence
of alcohol) and RC. 4511.19(A)(1)(f) (high blood alcohol
concentration). The remaining charges were dismissed. The
trial court sentenced Goudy to two years of community
control. With respect to the violation of R.C.
4511.19(A)(1)(f), the trial court imposed a 30-day jail
sentence. Of the 30 days, 10 were mandatory, and the
remaining 20 days could be served by electronically monitored
house arrest. Three of the mandatory 10 ten day could be
served by attending a 72-hour treatment program.
Additionally, 6 points were assessed to Goudy's license,
he was fined $800, and his license was suspended for 3 years.
Goudy has appealed, raising two assignments of error for our
OF ERROR I
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING MR. GOUDY'S PRIOR TENNESSEE
CONVICTION WAS AN EQUIVALENT OFFENSE TO R.C.  4511.19 WHEN
IT SENTENCED MR. GOUDY.
Goudy argues in his first assignment of error that the trial
court found his prior conviction to be a substantially
equivalent offense for purposes of sentencing and that Goudy
received harsher penalties because of it. Essentially, Goudy
argues that he was not sentenced as a first time offender,
and instead was sentenced based upon former R.C.
4511.19(G)(1)(b). In asserting that he was subjected to
increased penalties, he points to his 10-day mandatory jail
sentence. We do not agree.
"A trial court generally has discretion in misdemeanor
sentencing." State v. Woody, 9th Dist. Lorain
No. 14CA010679, 2016-Ohio-631, ¶ 15, citing State v.
Schneider, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 09CA0026, 2009-Ohio-6025,
¶ 6. "'Unless a sentence is contrary to law, we
review challenges to misdemeanor sentencing for an abuse of
discretion.'" Woody at ¶ 15, quoting
Schneider at ¶ 6. An abuse of discretion
indicates that the trial court was ...