Background
On May 1-2, 2025, William Bennett made numerous threatening calls to the New Philadelphia Police Department complaining about his upstairs neighbor. During these calls, Bennett threatened to harm the neighbor and his family, warned dispatchers that gang members would “take out” his neighbor, used racial slurs, and claimed membership in the Salvadoran MF Thirteen gang. He also directly threatened police officers and dispatchers, stating he knew where they lived and threatening violence against them and their families, while claiming to possess firearms.
The Tuscarawas County Grand Jury indicted Bennett on six felony counts: two counts of intimidation (third-degree felonies), two counts of telecommunications harassment (fifth-degree felonies), one count of ethnic intimidation (fifth-degree felony), and one count of aggravated menacing (first-degree misdemeanor). Bennett initially pleaded not guilty but subsequently entered a guilty plea to all counts on September 8, 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The trial court sentenced Bennett to eighteen months imprisonment, rejecting his argument for community control in favor of incarceration. The court found that the presumption of imprisonment was not overcome and that Bennett would not comply with community control terms. The appellate court affirmed the sentence on appeal.
The Fifth District applied Ohio’s sentencing review standard, which permits appellate modification only when a sentence is “clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” The court held that the trial court properly considered the statutory sentencing principles under Ohio Revised Code §2929.11 and the relevant recidivism and seriousness factors under §2929.12. The trial court specifically found that Bennett’s conduct—threatening law enforcement while performing their duties—constituted “textbook form of intimidation” and warranted imprisonment. The trial court also emphasized Bennett’s prior criminal history of over 60 convictions (many for telephone harassment), his lack of remorse, and his ORAS risk assessment score of 35, all supporting the conclusion that he presented a high risk of reoffending.
Key Takeaways
- Threatening calls targeting law enforcement officers and dispatchers, particularly threats of violence against them and their families, constitute serious felonies warranting imprisonment.
- A defendant’s extensive prior criminal history, especially prior convictions for similar offenses (telephone harassment), is a significant aggravating factor in sentencing decisions.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in rejecting community control when they find the defendant would not comply with imposed conditions and the seriousness of the offense warrants imprisonment.
- Appellate review of felony sentences is highly deferential; courts may only modify sentences found to be “clearly and convincingly contrary to law,” not merely because they disagree with the trial court’s exercise of discretion.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Ohio courts’ commitment to protecting law enforcement from intimidation and harassment. As police departments increasingly encounter threatening callers and online threats, this ruling confirms that courts will impose substantial prison sentences for such conduct, particularly where the defendant has a history of similar offenses and demonstrates lack of remorse or compliance with prior sanctions.
For defense counsel, the opinion illustrates the steep evidentiary burden required to overcome the presumption of imprisonment in Ohio felony sentencing. The highly deferential appellate standard means that trial court sentencing decisions—especially when grounded in statutory principles and factors—are rarely reversed, making the initial sentencing hearing the critical battleground rather than appellate review.