City of Toledo v. Reasonover

Decision Date29 December 1965
Docket NumberNo. 39447,39447
Citation34 O.O. 2d 13,5 Ohio St.2d 22,213 N.E.2d 179
Parties, 34 O.O.2d 13 CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellant, v. REASONOVER, Appellee.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. The Court of Appeals cannot hold that a trial court abused its discretion by imposing too severe a sentence on a defendant convicted of violating an ordinance, where the sentence imposed is within the limits authorized by the applicable ordinance and statutes and there is nothing in the record to indicate whether defendant had a past criminal record or what his driving record was or that the trial court in sentencing defendant did not consider any such past records.

2. The Supreme Court will not ordinarily consider a claim of error that was not raised in any was in the Court of Appeals and was not considered or decided by that court. (Section 2505.21, Revised Code, construed and applied.)

Defendant was duly charged by affidavit with operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway in Toledo, under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

This is prohibited by a Toledo ordinance in substantially the words used in Section 4511.19, Revised Code.

The applicable ordinance provides for 'a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment in the county or municipal jail for not more than six months, or both such fine and imprisonment.' Section 4511.99(B), Revised Code, authorizes a fine and imprisonment within the same limits. Section 4507.16, Revised Code, reads so far as pertinent:

'The trial judge * * * shall, in addition to * * * all other penalties provided by law or by ordinance, suspend for any period of time not exceeding three years or revoke the license of any person * * * convicted of * * *:

'(B) Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor * * *.'

Defendant while represented by counsel was tried in the Toledo Municipal Court and convicted by a jury. The trial court sentenced defendant to 60 days in the Toledo House of Correction, fined him $50 and costs and suspended his license to drive for three years. Upon appeal to the Common Pleas Court the judgment of the Municipal Court was affirmed.

In October 1964, defendant appealed from that Common Pleas Court judgment to the Court of Appeals on various grounds but did not in appealing raise any question as to the severity of his sentence. There was nothing in the record before the Court of Appeals to show whether defendant had a past criminal record or what his driving record was or to indicate whether or not the trial court had considered any such past records.

The Court of Appeals found 'the sentence * * * excessive and under the circumstances * * * very much greater than the proper protection of society demands and not in the exercise of reasonable and sound discretion' and for that reason reversed the judgment and remanded the cause to the Municipal Court for resentencing.

The cause is now before this court on the appeal by the city from that judgment, pursuant to allowance of the city's motion to certify the record.

Louis R. Young, director of law, and Kenneth E. DeShetler, Toledo, for appellant.

Sheldon M. Rosen and Steven L. Markowski, Toledo, for appellee.

TAFT, Chief Justice.

In effect, the Court of Appeals has held that the trial judge abused his discretion in imposing as severe a sentence upon defendant as he did.

In our opinion, the Court of Appeals cannot hold that a trial court abused its discretion by imposing too severe a sentence on a defendant convicted of violating an ordinance where the sentence imposed is within the limits authorized by the applicable ordinance and statutes and there is nothing in the record to indicate whether defendant had a past criminal record or what his driving record was or that the trial court in sentencing defendant did not consider any such past records. Lee v. State (1877), 32 Ohio St. 113.

Defendant contends further that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed because the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to comment during his argument to the jury on the failure of defendant to take the stand and testify. See Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106, decided April 28, 1965.

This contention was not made in the Court of Appeals or in this court in support of the cross-motion to certify of defendant which was argued before this court on June 10, 1965, and subsequently overruled. The question was never raised in this court until a brief was filed by defendant on November 10, 1965, only seven days before this case was set for argument and argued on the merits.

The Supreme Court will not ordinarily consider a claim of error that was not raised in any way in the Court of Appeals and was not considered or decided by that court.

Section 2505.21, Revised Code, provides in part:

'* * * Errors not argued by brief may be disregarded, but the court may consider and decide errors which are not assigned or specified.'

Thus, the Supreme Court ordinarily will not hold that the Court of Appeals erred in not considering or deciding a claim of error 'not assigned or specified' in that court and 'not argued by brief' in that court.

As pointed out in State v. Jones (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 13, 211 N.E.2d 198, '[i]f this court should now consider such a question before it had been presented to the Court of Appeals, we would be permitting the defendant to bypass the Court of Appeals.'

It may reasonably be argued that defendant should be excused from raising in the Court of Appeals his claim of error with respect to the prosecutor's comment on his failure to testify, because he could not reasonably anticipate such an unusual decision as Griffin v. California, supra...

To continue reading

Request your trial
410 cases
  • State v. Roberts, Case No. 2020 CA 0035
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 15 de janeiro de 2021
    ...sentencing when the sentence is authorized by statute and is within the statutory limits. See, generally, Toledo v. Reasonover (1965), 5 Ohio St.2d 22, 24, 34 O.O.2d 13, 14, 213 N.E.2d 179, 180-181. See, also, State v. Cassidy (1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 100, 102, 21 OBR 107, 108-109, 487 N.E.2d......
  • State v. Michael v. Haley
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 25 de julho de 1997
    ...... trial court's sentencing determination. Toledo v. Reasonover (1965), 5 Ohio St.2d 22, 34 O.O.2d 13, 213. N.E.2d 179. . . ......
  • State v. Patrick
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 22 de dezembro de 2020
    ...and within the applicable statutory limits. See State v. Hill , 70 Ohio St.3d 25, 29, 635 N.E.2d 1248 (1994) ; Toledo v. Reasonover , 5 Ohio St.2d 22, 213 N.E.2d 179 (1965), paragraph one of the syllabus. A sentence so imposed would not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. ......
  • Cox v. Jenkins
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 6 de outubro de 2015
    ...appeal by being presented in the trial court. State v. Williams, 51 Ohio St. 2d 112 (1977)(paragraph two of the syllabus)(Toledo v. Reasonover, 5 Ohio St. 2d 22 (1965), approved and followed.) The Second District enforced that rule against Cox by its plain language in ¶ 15. State v. Cox, 20......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT