State v. Gambrel

2026 Ohio 772

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 5, 2026
• Docket: 25CA8
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Gambrel, 2026-Ohio-772.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ATHENS COUNTY

State of Ohio, : Case No. 25CA8

Plaintiff-Appellee, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY v. :

Joshua D. Gambrel, : RELEASED 03/05/2026

Defendant-Appellant. :

______________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES:

Brian T. Goldberg, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

Keller J. Blackburn, Athens County Prosecutor, and Andrew T. Sanderson, Assistant Prosecutor, Athens, Ohio, for appellee. ______________________________________________________________________ Hess, J.

{¶1} Joshua D. Gambrel appeals from two judgments of the Athens County Court

of Common Pleas denying his motions for specific performance of a plea agreement. He

presents one assignment of error asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by

denying his “motion to enforce the original plea agreement.” For the reasons which follow,

we overrule the assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶2} In November 2015, Gambrel was indicted on one count of engaging in a

pattern of corrupt activity, seven counts related to possession of or trafficking in drugs,

three counts of theft of drugs, and eight counts of possessing criminal tools. He initially Athens App. No. 25CA8 2

pleaded not guilty, but on February 17, 2016, he pleaded guilty to all 19 counts. He

executed a written guilty plea which states in pertinent part:

No promises have been made to me, except as part of this plea agreement, stated entirely as follows: Plead guilty to the indictment with a joint recommendation of 10 years in prison with judicial release after five (5) years pending a favorable institutional summary report. 10 years on count 1, all other counts run concurrent. Upon release from prison, Defendant is to successfully complete the vivitrol program.

On February 18, 2016, the trial court issued a judgment entry imposing an aggregate ten-

year prison sentence. The sentencing entry states in part: “Upon release from

incarceration, Defendant is ordered to be screened for and enter and successfully

complete the Athens County Prosecutor’s Office Vivitrol Program.” On March 14, 2016,

Gambrel filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied.

{¶3} On December 1, 2020, the trial court granted Gambrel judicial release and

ordered, among other things, that he “[s]hall be placed on five (5) years Community

Control under the supervision of the Adult Parole Authority” and that he “shall be screened

for, enter, and successfully complete the Athens County Prosecutor’s Office Vivitrol

program.” Between July 12, 2021, and September 12, 2022, the State filed multiple

notices of violation of community control/judicial release. Ultimately, the State dismissed

one alleged violation, Gambrel stipulated to the remaining violations, and the trial court

continued community control with additional terms and conditions. On June 20, 2023, the

State filed another notice of violation of community control/judicial release. Gambrel

stipulated to the violations, and the trial court continued community control with additional

terms and conditions.

{¶4} Between December 28, 2023 and August 30, 2024, the State filed additional

notices of violation of community control/judicial release alleging, among other things, that Athens App. No. 25CA8 3

on or about November 29, 2023, Gambrel failed to report to the Athens County

Prosecutor’s Office to be screened for entrance into the Vivitrol program. On the State’s

motion, the court dismissed some alleged violations, including the one regarding the

Vivitrol program. Gambrel stipulated to the remaining violations, and the court revoked

his community control/judicial release and imposed an aggregate ten-year prison

sentence. The court also sentenced him to nine months in prison in a different case, to

be served consecutive to the prison sentence in this case, for a total aggregate prison

term of ten years and nine months. The court gave him credit for time previously served.

{¶5} On October 7, 2024, Gambrel filed a “motion to order specific performance

of plea deal for breach of plea agreement/motion for legal counsel to help prove the

breach of plea deal/ & a hearing be scheduled to do so.” Gambrel claimed that he asked

that the Vivitrol program be included in his plea agreement and that its inclusion enticed

him to plead guilty. He asserted that the State breached the plea agreement because it

failed to let him enter the Vivitrol program even though he tried to enter the program on

multiple occasions, and he kept using drugs, which is the cause of all his trouble. He

claimed that he could have been a successful person if he had been allowed in the

program. He asked the court to reorder judicial release and place him in the Vivitrol

program. The State interpreted Gambrel’s motion as a petition for post-conviction relief

and asserted, among other things, that it was untimely, that it was barred by res judicata,

and that “any difficulty” with his compliance with the Vivitrol program was harmless

because he had never had community control revoked for failing to comply with the

program. Athens App. No. 25CA8 4

{¶6} On November 14, 2024, the trial court issued a decision denying the motion

without a hearing. The court stated that “[f]or the reasons argued by the State, the motion

is both untimely and barred by res judicata.” The court also stated that to the extent the

plea agreement contemplated Gambrel’s post-prison entry into a Vivitrol program, he “has

never been violated for not attending such a program and thus has suffered no prejudice.”

The court stated that him “placing the blame for his continued criminal behavior on the

State for not facilitating his entry into a Vivitrol Program is spurious. Defendant alone is

responsible for his behavior whether or not he is drug-addicted.”

{¶7} On April 7, 2025, Gambrel filed a “motion for breach of plea agreement &

specific performance of plea deal.” He asserted that he was refiling his October 7, 2024

motion for which he never received a final judgment entry, and he made various

arguments in support of his request for specific performance. On April 21, 2025, the trial

court issued a decision denying the motion without a hearing for the reasons set forth in

its November 14, 2024 decision, which it attached as an appendix. On May 23, 2025,

Gambrel filed an appeal from the November 14, 2024 and April 21, 2025 decisions, along

with a motion for leave to file delayed appeal, which we granted.1

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶8} Gambrel presents one assignment of error: “The trial court abused its

discretion by denying Mr. Gambrel’s motion to enforce the original plea agreement.”

1 The notice of appeal states that Gambrel is appealing from “the judgment entry of conviction, entered in

this court on the ____ day of ______, 20__.” The criminal case docket statement he filed the same day as the notice of appeal specifies that the filing dates of the judgments or orders being appealed are November 14, 2024 and April 21, 2025. Athens App. No. 25CA8 5

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS

{¶9} In the sole assignment of error, Gambrel contends the trial court abused its

discretion by denying his “motion to enforce the original plea agreement.” Gambrel

asserts that a plea bargain is contractual in nature and subject to contract-law standards.

He further asserts that when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise by the

prosecutor, the promise must be fulfilled, and “[b]reach of a plea agreement could result

in withdrawal of the negotiated plea or a requirement that the state fulfill its end of the

bargain, depending upon the circumstances.” Gambrel maintains that as part of his plea

agreement, the parties agreed that “[u]pon his release, the Athens County Prosecutor

would agree to allow [him] to participate in their Vivitrol program.” Gambrel claims he

made multiple attempts to enter the Vivitrol program, and “[t]he failure to permit

participation in the program has resulted in his continued drug use and was the reason

behind his multiple probation violations.” He asserts that at a minimum, he put forth a

prima facie case that the State breached the plea agreement, so the trial court should

have conducted a hearing at which he could offer evidence. Alternatively, he asserts that

the court should have vacated his prison sentence and ordered specific performance of

the original terms of the plea agreement or allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea.

{¶10} Gambrel has not shown that the trial court erred when it denied either of his

motions for specific performance of the plea agreement. Gambrel provides no legal

support for his contention that the court erred by not conducting a hearing. See generally

App.R. 16(A)(7) (appellant’s brief shall include “[a]n argument containing the contentions

of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the

reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts Athens App. No. 25CA8 6

of the record on which appellant relies”). Moreover, the trial court gave three alternative

reasons for denying Gambrel’s motions: (1) the motions were untimely; (2) the motions

were barred by res judicata; and (3) Gambrel suffered no prejudice from the alleged

breach. Gambrel does not make any arguments on appeal with respect to the first or

second reasons. “‘When a trial court grants judgment on multiple, alternative bases and

an appellant does not challenge one of those bases on appeal, this Court will uphold the

judgment on the unchallenged basis.’” State v. Alexander, 2025-Ohio-236, ¶ 23 (4th

Dist.), quoting Schutte v. Summit Cty. Sheriff's Office, 2018-Ohio-2565, ¶ 21 (9th Dist.).

We also observe that Gambrel’s suggestion that he suffered prejudice because the failure

to let him participate in the Vivitrol program “resulted in his continued drug use and was

the reason behind his multiple probation violations” is purely speculative. “Speculation

may not be the basis for a judgment.” Gingerich v. Gingerich, 2025-Ohio-78, ¶ 25 (3d

Dist.). Accordingly, we overrule the sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s

judgments.

JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED. Athens App. No. 25CA8 7

JUDGMENT ENTRY

It is ordered that the JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED and that appellant shall pay the costs.

The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Athens County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.

IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed 60 days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 60-day period, or the failure of the appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 45-day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of 60 days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Smith, P.J. & Abele, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.

For the Court

BY: ________________________ Michael D. Hess, Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

Pursuant to Local Rule No. 22, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.