State v. Coon

2025 Ohio 1849

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 23, 2025
• Docket: OT-24-027, OT-24-028
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Coon, 2025-Ohio-1849.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OTTAWA COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. OT-24-027 OT-24-028 Appellee Trial Court No. 2023 CRI 094 2023 CRI 122 v.

Timothy J. Coon DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: May 23, 2025

*****

James J. VanEerten, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daivia S. Kasper, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

W. Alex Smith, for appellant.

SULEK, P.J.

{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant Timothy Coon appeals the judgments

of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas, convicting him following a guilty plea to

one count of obstructing official business and one count of aggravated menacing and

sentencing him to 11 months in prison. For the following reasons, the trial court’s

judgments are affirmed. I. Factual Background and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On April 2, 2023, Coon contacted 911 seeking the phone number for a

mental health line. The 911 operator provided the number and dispatched units to Coon’s

residence. While the units were on their way, Coon contacted the mental health line and

threatened to kill two individuals. For making those threats, the Ottawa County Grand

Jury indicted Coon in case No. 2023-CR-0122 on two counts of retaliation in violation of

R.C. 2921.05(A) and (C), felonies of the third degree.

{¶ 3} When the police arrived at Coon’s residence, they realized that there was a

warrant for his arrest for failing to appear at a prior court date in a different matter. Coon

came onto the front porch of his motor home carrying a machete and telling the officers

to go away. Eventually, the police tased and tackled Coon. From this, the Ottawa

County Grand Jury indicted Coon in case No. 2023-CR-0094 on one count of inducing

panic in violation of R.C. 2917.31(A)(2) and (C)(3), a felony of the fourth degree, one

count of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) and (B), a misdemeanor of

the first degree, one count of obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A)

and (B), a felony of the fifth degree, and one count of resisting arrest in violation of R.C.

2921.33(C)(2) and (D), a felony of the fourth degree.

{¶ 4} While his cases were pending, Coon was released on bond after successfully

completing a mental health evaluation. He violated the conditions of his bond several

times for missing curfews or drug testing.

2. {¶ 5} On April 29, 2024, Coon withdrew his initial plea of not guilty and entered a

plea of guilty in case No. 2023-CR-0122 to the amended count of aggravated menacing

in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) and (B), a misdemeanor of the first degree. In case No.

2023-CR-0094, Coon pleaded guilty to the count of obstructing official business in

violation of R.C. 2921.31(A) and (B), a felony of the fifth degree. In exchange for his

pleas, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts in both cases.

{¶ 6} Prior to accepting Coon’s pleas, the trial court conducted a detailed Crim.R.

11 plea colloquy. Coon affirmed that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol,

that he had never been treated for mental illness, and that he was feeling “good”

mentally. Coon did mention, however, that he was unable to take his prescription

medication for arthritis while in custody. Coon next agreed that he read the plea

agreement and fully discussed it with his attorney. He also described the charges to

which he was pleading guilty and their respective potential penalties. The trial court then

discussed the rights that Coon was waiving by pleading guilty, and Coon stated that he

understood and wished to waive those rights.

{¶ 7} The State then began its recitation of the facts. Coon disagreed with the

State’s version and instead offered that the whole issue began because of a dispute with

his wife during their divorce and the fact that the Lake Township Police Department did

not wear body cameras. Coon stated that he was falsely accused of threatening his wife,

which led to him being arrested in Wood County and to a series of legal issues that

3. snowballed. He said that he was given a mental health evaluation while in Wood County,

which determined that he was “more than competent” to understand what was happening.

{¶ 8} Following the recitation of facts, the trial court accepted Coon’s pleas, found

him guilty, and continued the matter for sentencing.

{¶ 9} At the sentencing hearing, the State recounted that while on bond, Coon has

struggled with mental health issues and anger issues. It noted, however, that Coon was a

65-year-old man with a very limited criminal history of only a couple of misdemeanor

convictions. The State recommended that Coon be placed on community control with

orders to receive mental health and anger counseling.

{¶ 10} Coon, for his part, instructed his attorney not to speak and addressed the

court himself. Coon essentially repeated his version of the facts that he provided during

the plea hearing. He also expressed his dismay in what he believed were the failings of

the legal system, and he maintained that he was innocent but was tired of fighting the

injustice. He further stated that he does not have mental health issues, recounting that he

passed a mental health evaluation in this case and in Wood County.

{¶ 11} As to punishment, Coon stated that he has been monitored while on bond

for two years and that he does not want to be monitored any longer, stating, “If you care

to punish me any further for what I did not do, I ask you put me in jail for whatever time,

and when that time is up, then I’m free and it’s behind me.” Coon stated that he would

be happy to do community service, but did not want to do probation. The trial court then

asked Coon if he understood that community service was not an option if he was not on

4. probation, and if that fact would change his mind. Coon responded that “if it’s going to

be to still have time limits imposed on my life and not be able to do things that are legal

to everyone else, then I don’t want it.” The trial court explained that probation would

include a curfew and drug testing, and again asked Coon if that was something he could

live with. Coon answered, “I don’t want to. I’ll do the jail time and when it’s over with,

it’s over with. If you choose -- I spent so much time in jail over this already and it’s all

due to one factor. Police without body cameras. . . . So if you want to punish me more, I

guess that’s what I prefer. When it’s done, it’s done.”

{¶ 12} The trial court then considered the factors in R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, and

2929.13, and found that Coon was not amenable to community control. It sentenced him

to 11 months in prison on the count of obstructing official business in case No. 2023-CR-

0094, and 35 days in jail on the count of aggravated menacing in case No. 2023-CR-

0122, with credit for time served.

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 13} Coon now timely appeals his judgments of conviction, asserting two

assignments of error for review:

1. Mr. Coon’s guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made due to lack of inquiry into his mental and physical condition.

2. The trial court abused its discretion by imposing a prison sentence rather than community control, contrary to Ohio’s sentencing guidelines.

5. III. Analysis

{¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Coon argues that his plea was not

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.

{¶ 15} “A defendant entering a plea in a criminal case must do so knowingly,

intelligently, and voluntarily, and the failure of any one element renders enforcement of

that plea unconstitutional.” State v. Hart, 2024-Ohio-5622, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.), quoting State

v. Mull, 2024-Ohio-370, ¶ 12 (6th Dist.). “Ohio’s Crim.R. 11 outlines the procedures that

trial courts are to follow when accepting pleas.” State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 11.

The rule “‘ensures an adequate record on review by requiring the trial court to personally

inform the defendant of his rights and the consequences of his plea and determine if the

plea is understandingly and voluntarily made.’” Id., quoting State v. Stone, 43 Ohio St.2d

163, 168 (1975).

{¶ 16} Coon does not argue that the trial court’s Crim.R. 11 colloquy was

deficient in any way. Instead, he argues that his plea may have been compromised by his

mental and physical condition. Upon review, the record does not contain any facts to

support this argument.

{¶ 17} At the plea hearing, Coon demonstrated his understanding of the charges

against him and those to which he was pleading guilty, as well as their potential penalties.

He affirmed that he was not under the influence of any drugs or medication, he had never

been diagnosed with a mental illness, and that he was feeling “good” mentally. His

responses during the hearing demonstrated a clear understanding of the nature of the

6. proceedings and were reflective of his choice to enter a plea of guilty to the charges. At

no time did defense counsel, the State, or the trial court express any concern that Coon

was unable to understand the process, and this court’s review of the record likewise finds

no reason to doubt his competence or the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of his

plea.

{¶ 18} Accordingly, Coon’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.

{¶ 19} In his second assignment of error, Coon argues that the trial court erred in

sentencing him to prison instead of community control.

{¶ 20} This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which

provides, in pertinent part,

The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

{¶ 21} Here, Coon was sentenced to an 11-month prison term on a fifth-degree

felony. R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) directs that an offender convicted of a nonviolent fourth-

or fifth-degree felony shall be placed on community control unless one of the exceptions

in R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(i)-(x) applies. Coon concedes that R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(iii)

7. applies because he “violated a term of the conditions of bond as set by the court.” The

trial court, therefore, had discretion to impose a prison term.

{¶ 22} Coon argues that the trial court abused its discretion in its consideration of

the principles and purposes of felony sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism

factors. He contends that the trial court should have followed the preference for

constructive sentencing alternatives and prioritized supportive mental health treatment

and structured probationary conditions over prison.

{¶ 23} “However, since the Ohio Supreme Court decided [State v. Jones, 2020-

Ohio-6729], the law governing appellate review of a trial court’s consideration of R.C.

2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing sentence is clear: ‘R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit

an “appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its

judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance

with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.”’” State v. Davis, 2024-Ohio-5135, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.),

quoting State v. Eames, 2024-Ohio-183, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Bowles, 2021-

Ohio-4401, ¶ 7 (6th Dist.). “Moreover, we may summarily dispose of an assignment of

error that is based only on the trial court’s consideration of the factors in R.C. 2929.11

and 2929.12.” Id., quoting Eames at ¶ 10.

{¶ 24} Coon’s sole argument is a challenge to the court’s discretion in determining

the appropriate punishment based on its weighing of the sentencing factors and

considerations. Such an argument is not subject to this court’s review.

8. {¶ 25} Accordingly, consistent with Jones, Coon’s second assignment of error is

not well-taken.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 26} For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the Ottawa County Court of

Common Pleas are affirmed. Coon is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to

App.R. 24.

Judgments affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________ Charles E. Sulek, P.J. JUDGE CONCUR. ____________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

9.