State v. Cordell

2025 Ohio 2089

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 13, 2025
• Docket: OT-24-033
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Cordell, 2025-Ohio-2089.]

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

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. OT-24-033

Appellee Trial Court No. 2023 CR 308

v.

Ronald Cordell DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: June 13, 2025

*****

James J. VanEerten, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alec Vogelpohl, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Misty Wood, for appellant.

***** DUHART, J.

{¶ 1} This case is before the court on appeal by appellant, Ronald Cordell, from the

May 6, 2024 order of the Ottawa County Common Pleas Court. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.

Assignment of Error

The 30-month prison sentence and permanent suspension of Mr. Cordell’s operator’s license was an abuse of discretion when the State’s recommendation of 18 months and a minimum license suspension along with Interlock as requested by Mr. Cordell’s counsel would have been sufficient to satisfy the purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.

Background

{¶ 2} On November 8, 2023, Cordell was indicted on one count of operating a

vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them, in

violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(e), a felony of the third

degree, one count of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse,

or a combination of them, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)(a), R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)(b),

and R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(e), a felony of the third degree, and one count of driving in

marked lanes or continuous lines of traffic, in violation of R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) and (B), a

minor misdemeanor.

{¶ 3} Although Cordell initially pled not guilty, he later withdrew his not guilty

plea and entered a plea of guilty to an amended Count 1, operating a vehicle under the

influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them, in violation of R.C.

4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (G)(1)(d), a felony of the fourth degree.

{¶ 4} Cordell appeared for sentencing on May 6, 2024. At sentencing, pursuant to

the plea agreement, the State recommended 18 months in prison and moved to dismiss

Counts Two and Three. Prior to sentencing, both Cordell and his attorney spoke, and

both requested, inter alia, that Cordell be permitted to continue driving with the Interlock

system in place. After Cordell spoke, the judge stated that he had reviewed both R.C.

2. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. He then made the following relevant statements:

THE COURT: . . . This is a case that does require a mandatory term of incarceration. I’ve considered the sentencing factors in 2929.12. The more likely recidivism factors outweigh the less likely factors. The more serious factors do not outweigh the less serious factors. I’ve considered the Presentence Report that I have here. And the listing of OVI charges that are here, some were dismissed. But in all, I think there’s nine or ten - - nine previous OVIs. I, I am familiar with you from Drug Court. And I know that you have enjoyed some periods of sobriety. But I know you cannot dabble in alcohol. MR. CORDELL: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You cannot control it. You are a diseased person. You have the disease of alcoholism, and we know that from, from talking in Drug Court. We know that from looking at your record. And we know that you can’t drive and we know you still do. MR. CORDELL: Legally. THE COURT: Even though you know you’re an alcoholic. Even though you’re still drinking, you still choose to drive.

{¶ 5} Then, after conversing with Cordell again, the court sentenced him to 30

months in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, fined him $1,350, and

suspended his operator’s license for life. The court did dismiss Counts Two and Three.

{¶ 6} Cordell appealed.

Law and Analysis

{¶ 7} Cordell argues that his 30-month sentence and the permanent suspension of

his operator’s license was an abuse discretion as the recommended sentence of 18 months

with a minimum license suspension along with Interlock “would have been sufficient to

satisfy the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.”

He contends that the trial court “failed to impose minimum sanctions to promote effective

rehabilitation as required by R.C. 2929.11.”

3. {¶ 8} We review felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Purley,

2022-Ohio-2524, ¶ 8 (6th Dist.). R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to

increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that either of the

following apply: (1) “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” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise

contrary to law.”

{¶ 9} Cordell does not suggest that the record does not support the trial court’s

findings under any of the specified statutes. Cordell’s only argument is that the trial court

did not appropriately apply R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, including by not sentencing

Cordell to the minimum sanction necessary to promote effective rehabilitation.

“However, 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.

Alliman, 2025-Ohio-1490, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.). We have held previously that the Ohio

Supreme Court case of State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, “precludes this court from

reviewing a felony sentence based solely upon an appellant's contention that the trial

court did not properly consider the factors identified in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when

determining an appropriate sentence.” Id. at ¶ 11. “Moreover, we may summarily

dispose of an assignment of error that is based only on the trial court's consideration of

4. the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Eames, 2024-Ohio-183, ¶ 10 (6th

Dist.).

{¶ 10} Here, Cordell’s only assigned error contends that the trial court did not

appropriately apply R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Such an assigned error is no longer

grounds for this court to find reversible error. Therefore, we find Cordell’s assignment of

error not well-taken.

Conclusion

{¶ 11} The judgment of the Ottawa County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

Pursuant to App.R. 24, Cordell is hereby ordered to pay the costs incurred on appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Gene A. Zmuda, J. ____________________________ Myron C. Duhart, 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/.

5.