[Cite as State v. Carney, 2025-Ohio-4914.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-P-0023 CITY OF KENT,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the Municipal Court, Kent Division - vs -
SCOTT RYAN CARNEY, Trial Court No. 2024 CRB 00819 K
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: October 27, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed
Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Michael A. Partlow, P.O. Box 1562, 3435 Kent Road, Stow, OH 44224 (For Defendant- Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Scott Ryan Carney, appeals the sentencing judgment entry of
the Portage County Municipal Court, Kent Division, following his guilty plea to one count
of Theft. We affirm.
{¶2} Carney was charged with multiple offenses in three complaints that
proceeded together through multiple pretrial hearings. On January 16, 2025, in case No.
2024CRB00819K, Carney entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one count of Theft, a first-
degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2913.02, in exchange for the State agreeing to dismiss the remaining charges. An acting judge for the court accepted Carney’s plea,
found him guilty of Theft, and referred the matter for a presentence investigation.
{¶3} At the sentencing hearing, held February 27, 2025, the prosecutor asked
for a 30-day jail sentence. After some debate regarding whether the prosecutor had
agreed to remain silent at sentencing, the trial court sentenced Carney to 180 days in jail
with 150 days suspended, $240.00 in stipulated restitution, $250.00 in fines and court
costs, and ordered that Carney would be persona non grata for one year at Meijer in
Portage County, where the theft occurred. The trial court subsequently granted a stay of
the balance of Carney’s sentence pending appeal.
{¶4} Carney asserts one assignment of error for our review:
{¶5} “The trial court erred by permitting appellee to give input on sentencing,
when such was clearly a violation of the plea agreement in this case.”
{¶6} Carney contends that the State, as part of the negotiated plea agreement,
had agreed to remain silent at sentencing. He argues the State breached this agreement
by asking for a 30-day jail sentence and, as a result, his sentence must be vacated.
{¶7} Carney relies on Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971) for this
proposition: “[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of
the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such
promise must be fulfilled.” In Santobello, the defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty in
exchange for the prosecutor’s agreement to make no recommendation as to sentence.
Id. at 258. Months later, a new prosecutor recommended the maximum sentence, which
the trial court then imposed. Id. at 259-260. The U.S. Supreme Court found it did not
matter that the prosecutor’s breach of the plea agreement was inadvertent and remanded
PAGE 2 OF 6
Case No. 2025-P-0023 the case for the sentencing court to determine whether the appropriate remedy was
resentencing or withdrawal of the guilty plea. Id. at 262-263.
{¶8} The State maintains the present case is unlike Santobello because the
record does not reflect any agreement to remain silent at Carney’s sentencing. Our
review of the record supports this conclusion.
{¶9} Carney’s written plea of guilty does not include an agreement to remain
silent at sentencing, and the pre-trial report filed the same day contains no such provision.
These documents indicate that in exchange for Carney’s plea of guilty to one count of
Theft, the State would dismiss the remaining charges in the other cases pending against
Carney at that time. In addition, the parties stipulated that Carney would be persona non
grata where the theft occurred and pay restitution in the amount of $240.00.
{¶10} These same terms were also stated at the plea hearing. The acting judge
reviewed Carney’s written plea of guilty on the record: “The Rule 11(F) sheet indicates
that, Mr. Carney, you intend to enter a guilty plea to 24 CRB 819, that the recommendation
from the State is you be persona non grata at wherever this event took place . . . you pay
$240 in restitution and that the other count of theft and traffic matter would be dismissed.”
The prosecutor explained its reasoning for negotiating the agreement and stated, “I do
believe that this recommendation would be fair, and I would ask you order a presentence
investigation.” Defense counsel stated, “That’s my understanding as well, your Honor,”
and Carney affirmed that it was his understanding. The acting judge explained the
following: “[T]he State of Ohio has made a recommendation that includes restitution.
Ultimate penalty is going to be dependent on the presentence investigation, and when
PAGE 3 OF 6
Case No. 2025-P-0023 you come back with your attorney and have some comments you might have to make to
the court and some comments from the State.” Carney affirmed he understood.
{¶11} The only suggestion that the State agreed to remain silent at sentencing
was made by Carney at the sentencing hearing after the prosecutor asked that Carney
be incarcerated for 30 days. Defense counsel, who had not been present at the plea
hearing, responded: “Your Honor, my client advised me that the State was to stand silent
today as to that part of the sentencing. I wasn’t here in January. I don’t even have
anything I can read regarding that, but that’s what his understanding was.” Carney said,
“I would like to add I was told that they would stay silent[.] . . . [T]he jail time’s the only
reason why I took the plea. I was in hopes that there would be none, and I was told the
State would stay silent and they weren’t, and I feel like I was bamboozled a little bit.”
{¶12} The sentencing judge, who had not presided over the plea hearing, made
the following findings on the record: “Mr. Carney, I also have reviewed the presentence
investigation. I don’t know if there was an agreement for the State to remain silent, and
I’ll be honest with you it’s not really having much impact on my decision if that gives you
any assurance, but . . . I don’t find you are taking accountability, and it’s disheartening to
me when I see the reports of . . . I think there were five different thefts in these reports.
You’re currently on probation in Summit County. . . . Taking all those factors into
consideration,” the court sentenced Carney to 180 days in jail with 150 days suspended
on the condition that Carney not violate the law for one year, the stipulated restitution of
$240.00, and $250.00 in fines and court costs.
{¶13} “A plea agreement constitutes a contract between the state and a criminal
defendant and is subject to the general law of contracts.” State v. Reddick, 2023-Ohio-
PAGE 4 OF 6
Case No. 2025-P-0023 765, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.); accord State v. Fetty, 2011-Ohio-3894, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.). “‘[T]he
terms of a given plea agreement must be ascertained before it can be determined whether
a party breached the agreement.’” Fetty at ¶ 21, quoting State v. Olivarez, 1999 WL
262158, *3 (11th Dist. Mar. 31, 1999).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Carney, 2025-Ohio-4914.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-P-0023 CITY OF KENT,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the Municipal Court, Kent Division - vs -
SCOTT RYAN CARNEY, Trial Court No. 2024 CRB 00819 K
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: October 27, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed
Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Michael A. Partlow, P.O. Box 1562, 3435 Kent Road, Stow, OH 44224 (For Defendant- Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Scott Ryan Carney, appeals the sentencing judgment entry of
the Portage County Municipal Court, Kent Division, following his guilty plea to one count
of Theft. We affirm.
{¶2} Carney was charged with multiple offenses in three complaints that
proceeded together through multiple pretrial hearings. On January 16, 2025, in case No.
2024CRB00819K, Carney entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one count of Theft, a first-
degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2913.02, in exchange for the State agreeing to dismiss the remaining charges. An acting judge for the court accepted Carney’s plea,
found him guilty of Theft, and referred the matter for a presentence investigation.
{¶3} At the sentencing hearing, held February 27, 2025, the prosecutor asked
for a 30-day jail sentence. After some debate regarding whether the prosecutor had
agreed to remain silent at sentencing, the trial court sentenced Carney to 180 days in jail
with 150 days suspended, $240.00 in stipulated restitution, $250.00 in fines and court
costs, and ordered that Carney would be persona non grata for one year at Meijer in
Portage County, where the theft occurred. The trial court subsequently granted a stay of
the balance of Carney’s sentence pending appeal.
{¶4} Carney asserts one assignment of error for our review:
{¶5} “The trial court erred by permitting appellee to give input on sentencing,
when such was clearly a violation of the plea agreement in this case.”
{¶6} Carney contends that the State, as part of the negotiated plea agreement,
had agreed to remain silent at sentencing. He argues the State breached this agreement
by asking for a 30-day jail sentence and, as a result, his sentence must be vacated.
{¶7} Carney relies on Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971) for this
proposition: “[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of
the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such
promise must be fulfilled.” In Santobello, the defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty in
exchange for the prosecutor’s agreement to make no recommendation as to sentence.
Id. at 258. Months later, a new prosecutor recommended the maximum sentence, which
the trial court then imposed. Id. at 259-260. The U.S. Supreme Court found it did not
matter that the prosecutor’s breach of the plea agreement was inadvertent and remanded
PAGE 2 OF 6
Case No. 2025-P-0023 the case for the sentencing court to determine whether the appropriate remedy was
resentencing or withdrawal of the guilty plea. Id. at 262-263.
{¶8} The State maintains the present case is unlike Santobello because the
record does not reflect any agreement to remain silent at Carney’s sentencing. Our
review of the record supports this conclusion.
{¶9} Carney’s written plea of guilty does not include an agreement to remain
silent at sentencing, and the pre-trial report filed the same day contains no such provision.
These documents indicate that in exchange for Carney’s plea of guilty to one count of
Theft, the State would dismiss the remaining charges in the other cases pending against
Carney at that time. In addition, the parties stipulated that Carney would be persona non
grata where the theft occurred and pay restitution in the amount of $240.00.
{¶10} These same terms were also stated at the plea hearing. The acting judge
reviewed Carney’s written plea of guilty on the record: “The Rule 11(F) sheet indicates
that, Mr. Carney, you intend to enter a guilty plea to 24 CRB 819, that the recommendation
from the State is you be persona non grata at wherever this event took place . . . you pay
$240 in restitution and that the other count of theft and traffic matter would be dismissed.”
The prosecutor explained its reasoning for negotiating the agreement and stated, “I do
believe that this recommendation would be fair, and I would ask you order a presentence
investigation.” Defense counsel stated, “That’s my understanding as well, your Honor,”
and Carney affirmed that it was his understanding. The acting judge explained the
following: “[T]he State of Ohio has made a recommendation that includes restitution.
Ultimate penalty is going to be dependent on the presentence investigation, and when
PAGE 3 OF 6
Case No. 2025-P-0023 you come back with your attorney and have some comments you might have to make to
the court and some comments from the State.” Carney affirmed he understood.
{¶11} The only suggestion that the State agreed to remain silent at sentencing
was made by Carney at the sentencing hearing after the prosecutor asked that Carney
be incarcerated for 30 days. Defense counsel, who had not been present at the plea
hearing, responded: “Your Honor, my client advised me that the State was to stand silent
today as to that part of the sentencing. I wasn’t here in January. I don’t even have
anything I can read regarding that, but that’s what his understanding was.” Carney said,
“I would like to add I was told that they would stay silent[.] . . . [T]he jail time’s the only
reason why I took the plea. I was in hopes that there would be none, and I was told the
State would stay silent and they weren’t, and I feel like I was bamboozled a little bit.”
{¶12} The sentencing judge, who had not presided over the plea hearing, made
the following findings on the record: “Mr. Carney, I also have reviewed the presentence
investigation. I don’t know if there was an agreement for the State to remain silent, and
I’ll be honest with you it’s not really having much impact on my decision if that gives you
any assurance, but . . . I don’t find you are taking accountability, and it’s disheartening to
me when I see the reports of . . . I think there were five different thefts in these reports.
You’re currently on probation in Summit County. . . . Taking all those factors into
consideration,” the court sentenced Carney to 180 days in jail with 150 days suspended
on the condition that Carney not violate the law for one year, the stipulated restitution of
$240.00, and $250.00 in fines and court costs.
{¶13} “A plea agreement constitutes a contract between the state and a criminal
defendant and is subject to the general law of contracts.” State v. Reddick, 2023-Ohio-
PAGE 4 OF 6
Case No. 2025-P-0023 765, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.); accord State v. Fetty, 2011-Ohio-3894, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.). “‘[T]he
terms of a given plea agreement must be ascertained before it can be determined whether
a party breached the agreement.’” Fetty at ¶ 21, quoting State v. Olivarez, 1999 WL
262158, *3 (11th Dist. Mar. 31, 1999). A court looks to the actual terms of the plea
agreement rather than extraneous representations or understandings of the agreement.
State v. Garcia, 2023-Ohio-2446, ¶ 19 (11th Dist.). “‘[T]his court will not impute terms or
conditions of a plea agreement that were not clearly negotiated and unambiguously made
part of the record.’” Id. at ¶ 18, quoting State v. Collier, 2020-Ohio-3033, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.).
{¶14} Here, there is nothing conclusive or unambiguous in the record to support
Carney’s contention that the State agreed to remain silent at sentencing. Accordingly,
we cannot conclude that the sentencing judge erred by permitting the State to give input
on sentencing.
{¶15} Carney’s sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶16} We affirm the Portage County Municipal Court’s judgment entry of
sentence.
ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
concur.
PAGE 5 OF 6
Case No. 2025-P-0023 JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignment of error
is without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Portage
County Municipal Court, Kent Division, is affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
JUDGE MATT LYNCH
PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON, concurs
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 6 OF 6
Case No. 2025-P-0023