Appeals panel: Judge did not break law for giving extra time for ‘vulgar’ remark

A judge did not err by ordering a Painesville man to serve six extra months in prison after overhearing him make a rude comment to the prosecutor after he was sentenced in a telecommunications harassment case, the 11th District Court of Appeals has ruled.

Matthew D. Thompson, 44, is currently housed in the Trumbull Correctional Institution in Leavittsburg.

Thompson pleaded guilty in February 2016 to a felony telecommunications harassment charge in Lake County Common Pleas Court. One month later, he pleaded guilty to another felony count of violating a protection order.

At the March 10, 2016, sentencing, Judge Eugene A. Lucci originally imposed consecutive terms of nine months each for the crimes, for a total of 18 months in prison.

However, Lucci increased the sentence to the maximum two years in prison following an outburst in court directed at a female assistant prosecutor.

“After court was adjourned and as (Thompson) was exiting the courtroom, ... the trial judge overheard (Thompson) make a vulgar, hostile comment to the prosecutor,” 11th District Judge Cynthia Westcott Rice wrote in her 2-1 opinion. “The trial judge immediately went back on the record and proceeded to reconsider appellant’s level of remorse for his criminal acts. The court stated that appellant’s outburst indicated he had ‘no remorse whatsoever’ for his acts and increased (Thompson’s) sentence... The court further advised appellant if he made any additional inappropriate comments as he exited, he would hold him in contempt of court.”

On appeal, Thompson argued that Lucci had no right to increase the sentence because the outburst was an act of contempt, rather than a lack of remorse.

“... He claims his utterance was a result of his bipolar personality disorder, a mental condition of which the court was aware,” Rice stated.

Thompson argued he should be re-sentenced under the less stringent law of contempt.

The appellate panel found Lucci was not required to apply the law of contempt and that the original sentence was not final when the judge added the additional time.

Case law shows that a sentence is not final until the judge signs the judgment entry and it is entered on the journal by the clerk of court, Rice added.

In addition, a court psychologist previously noted that despite being convicted of numerous prior crimes, Thompson never adequately addressed his underlying mental health issues, which “makes him dangerous.”

Appellate Judge Timothy P. Cannon concurred with Rice’s opinion.

Eleventh District Judge Colleen Mary O’Toole dissented, calling Lucci’s sentence contrary to law.

“... As (Thompson’s) action could be defined as an initial criminal contempt of the trial court, the law would indicate 30 days in jail as an appropriate punishment,” O’Toole argued. “He received far more.”

Thompson