LISBON — A Virginia man convicted in a sex-for-hire case in Columbiana County Municipal Court filed an appeal Friday to challenge his conviction and the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss last month.

Howard Hamilton Hill, 57, Yorktown, Va., was fined $750 and given a suspended 90-day jail term for engaging in prostitution and possessing criminal tools. He was ordered to complete 20 hours community service and a 12-hour online course.

The sentence was stayed pending the appeal.

Hill was accused of responding to an undercover ad on a known prostitution website and arranging for sexual activity with women in exchange for $140, then driving to East Palestine on Feb. 7 for the meeting, with the phone used to make the arrangements in his possession.

His attorney filed a motion for dismissal before he was convicted, claiming the law related to engaging in prostitution was vague, overbroad and violates the defendant’s due process right to privacy and liberty.

In his ruling, Judge Tim McNicol disagreed with the argument for vagueness, saying that it lacked merit. He said “this law requires no guessing as to its application. Persons of common intelligence would recognize that ORC 2907.321 (B) applies to sex buyer and prostitute interactions, and not adults involved in personal intimate relationships like a husband and wife.”

He said the statute is written in a such a way that any ordinary person can understand what’s legal and what isn’t.

McNicol also overruled the argument that the statute is overbroad. He pointed out the defendant argued that generally accepted norms such as courting, dating and marriage could constitute a violation, but “such argument is nothing more than creative speculation and runs afoul of ordinary intelligence and common sense.”

As for the due process argument, which was overruled, McNicol said the statute does not infringe on any personal or relational right of the defendant, who’s free to date, marry and engage in sexual activity with any consenting adult he wants.

“He runs afoul of the law though when he acts recklessly and with heedless indifference when he agrees to pay an anonymous stranger for sex. The legislature’s intent when enacting RC 2907.321 was to combat human trafficking and, in this case, it is being used exactly as intended: punishing the demand side of the sex trafficking industry,” McNicol wrote.