State v. Hake

2025 Ohio 4622

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 6, 2025
• Docket: CA2025-01-001
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Hake, 2025-Ohio-4622.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

PREBLE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2025-01-001

: OPINION AND - vs - JUDGMENT ENTRY : 10/6/2025

NATHANIEL W. HAKE, :

Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM PREBLE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 24 CR 14244

Eric Marit, Preble County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kathryn M. West, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Alana Van Gundy, for appellant.

____________ OPINION

M. POWELL, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Nathaniel Hake, appeals his conviction and sentence in the

Preble County Court of Common Pleas for passing bad checks. Preble CA2025-01-001

{¶ 2} On February 5, 2024, appellant was indicted on three counts of passing bad

checks in violation of R.C. 2913.11(B). Count 1, a fourth-degree felony, concerned three

checks written to Norman and Gene Gabbard as payments upon a land installment

contract in the aggregate amount of $9,996.48.1 Although appellant had made good on

these checks to the Gabbards prior to being indicted, he had failed to do so within ten

days of receiving notice that the checks had been dishonored as provided by R.C.

2913.11(C)(2). Count 2, also a fourth-degree felony, concerned a $95,300 check written

to CAT Ohio. Count 3, a third-degree felony, concerned three checks written to CAT Ohio,

totaling $233,738.

{¶ 3} Appellant retained attorney Jeremy Tomb to represent him. Appellant was

arraigned on February 9, 2024, and entered not guilty pleas. On June 14, 2024, Tomb

moved to withdraw as counsel on the basis that appellant was not adhering to the attorney

fee agreement and was not communicating with counsel. A hearing was held on the

motion during which appellant informed the trial court he intended to hire new counsel.

By entry of June 21, 2024, the trial court granted Tomb's motion to withdraw as counsel.

The entry scheduled a hearing "on the status of defense counsel" for July 10, 2024, and

memorialized the trial court's advisement to appellant that "if he did not hire counsel by

July 10, 2024, the Court would appoint an attorney to represent him so that the case could

move forward without unnecessary delay." When appellant did not retain counsel by the

July 10, 2024 status hearing, the trial court appointed counsel for appellant.

{¶ 4} Appellant moved to dismiss Counts 2 and 3, claiming that Preble County

was not the proper venue for those charges. A hearing on the motion was scheduled for

August 20, 2024, and was subsequently rescheduled twice. On September 9, 2024, while

1. The indictment refers to the Gabbards as Norman Ray and Gene Gabbard. However, Gene Gabbard, a woman, is referred to as Jean Gabbard at the sentencing hearing. -2- Preble CA2025-01-001

the motion to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 remained pending, appellant appeared before the

trial court and pled guilty to Count 1, an amended charge of fifth-degree felony attempted

passing of bad checks, and Count 2 as charged. In consideration for the guilty plea, Count

3 was dismissed. The trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea and scheduled the matter

for sentencing on December 18, 2024. At sentencing, the trial court sentenced appellant

to 12 months in prison on Count 1 and 18 months in prison on Count 2, and ordered that

the prison terms be served consecutively.

{¶ 5} Appellant now appeals, raising four assignments of error. The third

assignment of error will be addressed last.

{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1:

THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT DISMISS CHARGES TWO AND THREE BASED UPON LACK OF VENUE.

{¶ 7} Appellant argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law because it "did

not determine whether it had proper venue–and thus jurisdiction" over Counts 2 and 3,

and did not rule on his motion to dismiss. It is well established that when a trial court fails

to rule on a motion, the appellate court will presume the trial court overruled the motion.

State v. Young, 2006-Ohio-1784, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.). An appellate court applies a de novo

standard of review when reviewing a trial court's decision regarding a motion to dismiss.

State v. Myers, 2019-Ohio-4914, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 8} "Venue commonly refers to the appropriate place of trial for a criminal

prosecution within a state." State v. Bussell, 2025-Ohio-699, ¶ 8 (12th Dist.). Venue is not

jurisdictional and is also not a material element of the offense. State v. Jordan, 2015-

Ohio-575, ¶ 29 (12th Dist.). By pleading guilty, a defendant admits to committing the

offense as charged. Id. Moreover, by pleading guilty, a defendant waives the opportunity

to challenge the factual issue of venue. Id.

-3- Preble CA2025-01-001

{¶ 9} As appellant pled guilty to Count 2 (and Count 1) and Count 3 was

dismissed, the State was not required to prove venue. Rather, appellant's guilty plea

admitted that venue was proper. The plea hearing as well as the written waiver and plea

agreement signed by appellant indicate that appellant was aware that by pleading guilty

he was admitting to committing the offenses and consequently that the State was not

required to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, appellant has waived

the ability to challenge the factual issue of venue. Id. at ¶ 30.

{¶ 10} Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 11} Assignment of Error No. 2:

THE COURT VIOLATED MR. HAKE'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WHEN IT DENIED MR. HAKE COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE.

{¶ 12} Appellant argues that the trial court violated his right to counsel of his

choice, thereby committing structural error and requiring an automatic reversal, when the

"court improperly denied [him] the capability to find retained counsel" and instead

appointed counsel on July 10, 2024.

{¶ 13} The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

guarantee a criminal defendant the right to counsel. State ex rel. Boyd v. Tone, 2023-

Ohio-3832, ¶ 12; see also Ohio Const., art. I, § 10. An "element of this right is the right of

a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him."

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144 (2006). If a defendant has the ability

to retain a qualified attorney, the Sixth Amendment generally protects his choice of

counsel. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 625 (1989). A court

commits structural error when it wrongfully denies a defendant his counsel of choice, thus

a defendant need not demonstrate further prejudice. Gonzalez-Lopez at 150.

{¶ 14} Upon reviewing the record, we find that the trial court did not violate

-4- Preble CA2025-01-001

appellant's right to counsel of his choice when it appointed an attorney for appellant on

July 10, 2024. On June 21, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on appellant's former

attorney's motion to withdraw as counsel. During the hearing, appellant informed the trial

court that he intended to hire new counsel and that he had three appointments with

potential counsel. The trial court advised appellant that a hearing "on the status of defense

counsel" would be held on July 10, 2024, that such hearing would be vacated only if a

retained attorney would file a notice of appearance on appellant's behalf prior to that time,

and that the court would appoint counsel if appellant did not hire counsel by July 10, 2024.

The trial court's advisement was memorialized in its June 21, 2024 entry, including that

"if [appellant] did not hire counsel by July 10, 2024, the Court would appoint an attorney

to represent him so that the case could move forward without unnecessary delay." When

appellant appeared on July 10, 2024, having not retained counsel, the trial court

appointed counsel to represent him. However, in doing so, the court stated that appellant

could still hire his own attorney, and that it would be inclined to grant a continuance if one

was asked by his potential newly hired attorney.

{¶ 15} The record plainly shows that the trial court did not, at any time, deny

appellant the right to hire counsel of his own choosing. The trial court appointed counsel

to keep the case moving forward but still permitted appellant to obtain counsel of his

choice. A trial court has wide latitude in balancing the right to counsel of choice against

the demands of its calendar. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 152, citing Morris v. Slappy,

461 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1983). Appellant simply did not hire counsel before or after the July

10, 2024 hearing, and then proceeded to enter a guilty plea while represented by

appointed counsel.

{¶ 16} Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 17} Assignment of Error No. 4:

-5- Preble CA2025-01-001

MR. HAKE'S PLEA WAS ILLUSORY AND THEREFORE INVALID UNDER OHIO LAW.

{¶ 18} Appellant argues that the plea agreement was illusory because it was based

on a statement by the trial court that was invalid and unenforceable, thus rendering the

plea unknowing and involuntary.

{¶ 19} Generally, a plea bargain is contractual in nature and subject to contract-

law standards. State v. Butts, 112 Ohio App.3d 683, 686 (8th Dist. 2001). A contract is

illusory "when by its terms the promisor retains an unlimited right to determine the nature

or extent of his performance; the unlimited right, in effect, destroys his promise and thus

makes it merely illusory." Century 21 Am. Landmark, Inc. v. McIntyre, 68 Ohio App.2d

126, 129-130 (1st Dist. 1980). "'Where an illusory promise is made, that is, a promise

merely in form, but in actuality not promising anything, it cannot serve as consideration.

Even if it were recognized by law, it would impose no obligation, since the promisor always

has it within his power to keep his promise and yet escape performance of anything

detrimental to himself or beneficial to the promise.'" State v. Johnson, 2023-Ohio-2282, ¶

47 (7th Dist.), quoting 3 Williston on Contracts, Section 7:7 (4th Ed. 2022).

{¶ 20} The plea hearing was held on September 9, 2024. The plea agreement was

that Count 1 would be amended to an attempted passing bad checks, reducing it from a

fourth-degree felony to a fifth-degree felony, and that in consideration for appellant's guilty

plea to the amended Count 1 and to Count 2 as charged, Count 3, a third-degree felony,

would be dismissed. The State further agreed to dismiss Count 2 if appellant paid $95,300

in restitution to Ohio CAT by the date of sentencing. At the conclusion of the plea hearing

the trial court noted that trial counsel had requested that sentencing be set out a bit further

than customary to provide appellant with additional time to obtain the funds to make

restitution on Count 2. The State had no objection and the trial court scheduled sentencing

-6- Preble CA2025-01-001

for December 18, 2024.

{¶ 21} Appellant argues that the State's promise to dismiss Count 2 was illusory

because the trial court advised him during the plea hearing that it could sentence him that

day, thus making it impossible to pay restitution on Count 2, a term of the plea agreement.

Appellant also asserts that he was not advised of the date for when the restitution had to

be paid, whom to pay the restitution to, or how to pay the restitution.

{¶ 22} The record belies appellant's assertion. The written waiver and plea

agreement signed by appellant on September 9, 2024, explicitly states, "Defendant to pay

restitution of $95,300 to Ohio CAT prior to sentencing. . . . If Defendant pays restitution

to Ohio CAT prior to sentencing, State will move to dismiss count 2 prior to sentencing."

At the conclusion of the plea hearing, the trial court scheduled sentencing for December

18, 2024. The last page of the written waiver and plea agreement signed by appellant

clearly states, "This matter is hereby scheduled for final disposition on the 18 day of Dec.

2024 at 1:00 o'clock p.m." As appellant had business dealings with Ohio CAT, it is

reasonable to assume he knew where to send or how to pay the restitution. Thus,

appellant was clearly advised he was to pay $95,300 in restitution to Ohio CAT before

December 18, 2024.

{¶ 23} In support of his argument that the plea agreement was illusory, appellant

cites State v. Aponte, 145 Ohio App.3d 607 (10th Dist. 2001). In that case, the defendant

entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to provide the State with information in

exchange for being allowed to withdraw his guilty plea at a later time. The Tenth District

Court of Appeals found that the State's promise to allow the defendant to withdraw his

guilty plea if he complied with the plea agreement was an illusory promise because the

State had no authority to fulfill that promise as the withdrawal of a guilty plea lies solely

within the discretion of the trial court. Id. at 613-614.

-7- Preble CA2025-01-001

{¶ 24} Aponte does not apply here. The record reflects that the trial court approved

the term of the plea agreement for potential dismissal of Count 2 when it extended the

time for sentencing specifically to allow appellant time to obtain the funds to make

restitution. That the trial court advised appellant it could sentence him at the conclusion

of the plea hearing does not make the State's promise to dismiss Count 2 illusory. Crim.R.

11(C)(2)(b) provides that a trial court must inform the defendant, and determine that the

defendant understands, that "the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with

judgment and sentence." State v. Bowling, 2025-Ohio-2272, ¶ 41 (12th Dist.). Not only

did the trial court comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b), but it also informed appellant he would

be sentenced at a later date: "I do not intend to proceed with sentencing today. There will

be a pre-sentence investigation and we will set this for final disposition at a future date.

However, I am still obligated to advise you that the Court has the authority to proceed

immediately with judgment and sentence when you enter your plea, do you understand

that?" Appellant replied affirmatively.

{¶ 25} In consideration for appellant's guilty plea, the State reduced a fourth-

degree felony to a fifth-degree felony (Count 1), dismissed the most serious offense

(Count 3, a third-degree felony), and provided appellant the opportunity to obtain

dismissal of Count 2, a fourth-degree felony, by making restitution by the sentencing date.

Contrary to appellant's assertion, there was no "illusion of [a] false opportunity" and the

plea reflected a bargained-for exchange. His plea agreement was therefore not illusory.

{¶ 26} Appellant's fourth assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 27} Assignment of Error No. 3:

THE COURT ERRED BY SENTENCING MR. HAKE TO AN EXCESSIVE SENTENCE.

{¶ 28} Appellant was sentenced to maximum consecutive prison terms on Counts

-8- Preble CA2025-01-001

1 and 2. Appellant argues that this sentence is excessive when considering (1) he made

restitution on the Count 1 offense, (2) the Count 2 offense was improperly venued, (3) the

offenses could have been merged under R.C. 2913.11(D) because the checks were

allegedly written within a period of 180 consecutive days, (4) he is not a violent offender,

and (5) he expressed deep remorse. Appellant does not challenge the consecutive nature

of the sentence but focuses solely on the R.C. 2929.11 purposes and principles of felony

sentencing and the standard of felony sentencing review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). We

decline to address appellant's assertion regarding Count 2 because as we found under

his first assignment of error, appellant's guilty plea admitted that venue was proper.

{¶ 29} A felony sentence is reviewed under the standard set forth in R.C.

2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2),

an appellate court can modify or vacate a sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds

either of the following: (a) 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; or

(b) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly

contrary to law where the trial court considers the principles and purposes of R.C.

2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes postrelease

control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range. State v.

Venters, 2025-Ohio-3111, ¶ 53 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 30} "R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to conduct an

independent review of a trial court's sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.12 or its

adherence to the purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11." State v. Bryant,

2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 21, citing State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 41-42. Nothing within the

statute permits an appellate court to "independently weigh the evidence in the record and

-9- Preble CA2025-01-001

substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects

compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12." Jones at ¶ 42.

{¶ 31} We find that appellant's sentence is not contrary to law. The imposition of a

12-month prison term and 18-month prison term falls within the permissible statutory

range for a fifth-degree felony offense and fourth-degree felony offense, respectively; see

R.C. 2929.14(A)(4), (5); and a two-year optional term of postrelease control was properly

imposed for the offenses. See R.C. 2967.28. In imposing appellant's sentence, the trial

court noted, both at the sentencing hearing and in its sentencing entry, that it had

considered the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 as well

as the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. Though appellant

believes a shorter prison term is a more appropriate sentence, we are precluded from

second-guessing or independently weighing the evidence and substituting our judgment

for that of the trial court. See Jones at ¶ 42. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates

that appellant's sentence was based on impermissible considerations, that is,

considerations that fall outside those set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Rather, the

record reflects that when sentencing appellant the trial court focused on appellant's

criminal record which consisted of theft and fraud offenses and passing bad checks, most

of which were felonies.

{¶ 32} As for appellant's argument that the offenses could have been merged

under R.C. 2913.11(D) because the checks were allegedly written within a period of 180

consecutive days, we find it lacks merit. R.C. 2913.11(D) provides that "[i]n determining

the value of the payment for purposes of division (E) of this section, the court may

aggregate all checks and other negotiable instruments that the offender issued or

transferred or caused to be issued or transferred in violation of division (A) of this section

within a period of one hundred eighty consecutive days." "Nowhere in R.C. 2913.11 does

- 10 - Preble CA2025-01-001

it mandate that the state is bound or required to aggregate all checks. Aggregation is

permissible to bump individual misdemeanors to a felony and is discretionary. Appellant's

acts of passing multiple bad checks is not a 'single crime,' but separate crimes relative to

each separate victim." State v. Joseph, 2017-Ohio-7309, ¶ 18 (5th Dist.).

{¶ 33} Appellant's third assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 34} Judgment affirmed.

BYRNE, P.J., and SIEBERT, J., concur.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Preble County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.

/s/ Matthew R. Byrne, Presiding Judge

/s/ Mike Powell, Judge

/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge

- 11 -