Twelfth District: Trial Court Should Consider Reversing Guardsman’s Probation of No Firearms
An Ohio National Guardsman sentenced to five years’ probation for a road rage incident, which included a ban against owning or holding a gun, had part of his appeal overturned. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals said the man’s probation sentence should be reconsidered due to his military status.
Adam P. Intihar was involved in the road rage incident in December 2014 where he showed his handgun to another driver, who said he feared for his life when he saw the weapon. Intihar was charged with a first-degree misdemeanor for aggravated menacing. A jury found Intihar not guilty of aggravated menacing, but guilty of a lesser charge of menacing. Intihar was sentenced to 30 days in jail, with 27 of those days suspended. The Lebanon Municipal Court also imposed five years’ probation.
Intihar appealed his convictions to the Twelfth District, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court’s decision. Intihar said he had a concealed carry permit on the night of the road rage incident. He also served as a guardsman with the Ohio National Guard. He argued the trial court erred when it denied him from owning, possessing, or using a gun.
In the appeal’s court opinion, Judge Shephen W. Powell wrote that while a trial court has a “broad discretion” when determining probation conditions, the court should consider if it “(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 probation,” quoting an earlier Ohio Supreme Court decision (State v. Jones, 1990).
“Based on the unique set of facts and circumstances of this case, we believe this issue deserves a more thorough review so that the trial court may determine whether such a restriction serves the statutory ends of probation or whether it is so overly broad that it unnecessarily impinges upon Intihar’s liberty,” Judge Powell wrote.
Two other assignment of errors from Intihar’s appeal were affirmed. Judges Robert A. Hendrickson and Robert R. Ringland concurred in the decision.
State v. Intihar, 2015-Ohio-5507
Criminal Appeal From: Lebanon Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: Dec. 30, 2015
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.
PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.