[Cite as State v. Hedrick, 2026-Ohio-1903.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2025-11-128 Appellee, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 5/26/2026 JOSEPH HEDRICK, :
Appellant. :
:
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2025-02-0242
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Christopher Bazeley, for appellant.
____________ OPINION
SIEBERT, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Joseph Hedrick, appeals the decision of the Butler County Court
of Common Pleas sentencing him to a total prison term of 16 months following his guilty Butler CA2025-11-128
plea to one count of aggravated assault and one count of assault. Finding no error in the
trial court's sentencing decision, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Hedrick was initially indicted on two counts of gross sexual imposition in
violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), fourth-degree felonies, and two counts of sexual
imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A), third-degree misdemeanors.
{¶ 3} Hedrick later entered into a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to the
agreement, he pled guilty to amended charges of aggravated assault in violation of
2903.12(A)(1), a fourth-degree felony, and assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a first-
degree misdemeanor. At the plea hearing, the State presented a factual basis underlying
the charges. According to the State, Hedrick struck a 16-year-old victim on the buttocks
with a paddle while her hands and feet were strapped down, which caused serious
physical harm. He then told her, "I could have raped you." The second incident involved
Hedrick fondling the breasts of a 13-year-old victim and causing her physical injury.
{¶ 4} After determining that Hedrick's plea was knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily entered, the trial court accepted the plea and scheduled the matter for
sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard from the victims' aunt
regarding the trauma suffered by the victims and their ongoing mental health struggles.
Hedrick noted that several individuals were present to speak on his behalf. One woman
spoke on his behalf who disputed aspects of the case. Hedrick also submitted a
memorandum in mitigation with letters similarly denying or questioning the victims'
allegations. The court thereafter imposed a 16-month prison term for the aggravated
assault conviction and a concurrent 180-day jail term for the assault conviction. Hedrick
now appeals, raising two assignments of error for review.
-2- Butler CA2025-11-128
II. Appeal
A. Felony Sentencing
{¶ 5} In his first assignment of error, Hedrick argues the trial court erred by
imposing a 16-month prison sentence for his aggravated assault conviction. He contends
the court should have imposed community control because he had no prior criminal
history, expressed remorse, and complied with the conditions of his pretrial bond.
{¶ 6} Felony sentences are reviewed under the standard set forth in R.C.
2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Under that statute, an appellate
court can modify or vacate a sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds either:
(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.
{¶ 7} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law when the trial
court considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, the seriousness and
recidivism factors set forth 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.).
{¶ 8} "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 in the
statute authorizes 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." Jones at ¶ 42.
-3- Butler CA2025-11-128
{¶ 9} Following review, we find that Hedrick's sentence is not contrary to law. The
16-month prison term falls within the permissible statutory range for a fourth-degree
felony, and the trial court properly imposed a discretionary two-year term of postrelease
control. R.C. 2929.14 (A)(4); R.C. 2967.28. In both its sentencing entry and at the
sentencing hearing, the trial court expressly stated that it considered the purposes and
principles of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, as well as the seriousness and
recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.
{¶ 10} Although Hedrick argues that community control would have been a more
appropriate sanction, we may not independently reweigh the sentencing factors or
substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Jones at ¶ 42. Accordingly, because the
trial court's felony sentencing decision is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law,
Hedrick's first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Misdemeanor Sentencing
{¶ 11} In his second assignment of error, Hedrick argues the trial court abused its
discretion by imposing the maximum sentence for assault, a first-degree misdemeanor,
without expressly finding that he committed the worst form of the offense.
{¶ 12} "We review a trial court's sentence on a misdemeanor violation under an
abuse of discretion standard." State v. Jezioro, 2017-Ohio-2587, ¶ 6 (12th Dist.). An
abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. State v. Hancock, 2006-Ohio-160, ¶ 130.
{¶ 13} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.21 and 2929.22, trial courts have broad discretion
when determining what sentence is appropriate for each given misdemeanor case. State
v. Kinsworthy, 2014-Ohio-2238, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.). When determining the appropriate
sentence, the trial court must be guided by the purposes of misdemeanor sentencing
which are "to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish
-4- Butler CA2025-11-128
the offender." R.C. 2929.21(A).
{¶ 14} As relevant here, R.C. 2929.22(C) provides that a court may impose the
maximum jail term on offenders who commit the worst forms of the offense or whose
conduct and response to prior sanctions demonstrate that such a sentence is necessary
to deter future crime. The phrase "worst forms of the offense" is not statutorily defined
and is left to the discretion of the trial court. State v. Elzey, 2025-Ohio-5322, ¶ 50 (2nd
Dist.). A trial court, however, is not required to make specific findings on the record before
imposing a maximum misdemeanor sentence. State v. Yeban, 2024-Ohio-2545, ¶ 69 (1st
Dist.).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Hedrick, 2026-Ohio-1903.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2025-11-128 Appellee, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 5/26/2026 JOSEPH HEDRICK, :
Appellant. :
:
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2025-02-0242
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Christopher Bazeley, for appellant.
____________ OPINION
SIEBERT, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Joseph Hedrick, appeals the decision of the Butler County Court
of Common Pleas sentencing him to a total prison term of 16 months following his guilty Butler CA2025-11-128
plea to one count of aggravated assault and one count of assault. Finding no error in the
trial court's sentencing decision, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Hedrick was initially indicted on two counts of gross sexual imposition in
violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), fourth-degree felonies, and two counts of sexual
imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A), third-degree misdemeanors.
{¶ 3} Hedrick later entered into a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to the
agreement, he pled guilty to amended charges of aggravated assault in violation of
2903.12(A)(1), a fourth-degree felony, and assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a first-
degree misdemeanor. At the plea hearing, the State presented a factual basis underlying
the charges. According to the State, Hedrick struck a 16-year-old victim on the buttocks
with a paddle while her hands and feet were strapped down, which caused serious
physical harm. He then told her, "I could have raped you." The second incident involved
Hedrick fondling the breasts of a 13-year-old victim and causing her physical injury.
{¶ 4} After determining that Hedrick's plea was knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily entered, the trial court accepted the plea and scheduled the matter for
sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard from the victims' aunt
regarding the trauma suffered by the victims and their ongoing mental health struggles.
Hedrick noted that several individuals were present to speak on his behalf. One woman
spoke on his behalf who disputed aspects of the case. Hedrick also submitted a
memorandum in mitigation with letters similarly denying or questioning the victims'
allegations. The court thereafter imposed a 16-month prison term for the aggravated
assault conviction and a concurrent 180-day jail term for the assault conviction. Hedrick
now appeals, raising two assignments of error for review.
-2- Butler CA2025-11-128
II. Appeal
A. Felony Sentencing
{¶ 5} In his first assignment of error, Hedrick argues the trial court erred by
imposing a 16-month prison sentence for his aggravated assault conviction. He contends
the court should have imposed community control because he had no prior criminal
history, expressed remorse, and complied with the conditions of his pretrial bond.
{¶ 6} Felony sentences are reviewed under the standard set forth in R.C.
2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Under that statute, an appellate
court can modify or vacate a sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds either:
(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.
{¶ 7} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law when the trial
court considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, the seriousness and
recidivism factors set forth 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.).
{¶ 8} "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 in the
statute authorizes 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." Jones at ¶ 42.
-3- Butler CA2025-11-128
{¶ 9} Following review, we find that Hedrick's sentence is not contrary to law. The
16-month prison term falls within the permissible statutory range for a fourth-degree
felony, and the trial court properly imposed a discretionary two-year term of postrelease
control. R.C. 2929.14 (A)(4); R.C. 2967.28. In both its sentencing entry and at the
sentencing hearing, the trial court expressly stated that it considered the purposes and
principles of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, as well as the seriousness and
recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.
{¶ 10} Although Hedrick argues that community control would have been a more
appropriate sanction, we may not independently reweigh the sentencing factors or
substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Jones at ¶ 42. Accordingly, because the
trial court's felony sentencing decision is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law,
Hedrick's first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Misdemeanor Sentencing
{¶ 11} In his second assignment of error, Hedrick argues the trial court abused its
discretion by imposing the maximum sentence for assault, a first-degree misdemeanor,
without expressly finding that he committed the worst form of the offense.
{¶ 12} "We review a trial court's sentence on a misdemeanor violation under an
abuse of discretion standard." State v. Jezioro, 2017-Ohio-2587, ¶ 6 (12th Dist.). An
abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. State v. Hancock, 2006-Ohio-160, ¶ 130.
{¶ 13} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.21 and 2929.22, trial courts have broad discretion
when determining what sentence is appropriate for each given misdemeanor case. State
v. Kinsworthy, 2014-Ohio-2238, ¶ 30 (12th Dist.). When determining the appropriate
sentence, the trial court must be guided by the purposes of misdemeanor sentencing
which are "to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish
-4- Butler CA2025-11-128
the offender." R.C. 2929.21(A).
{¶ 14} As relevant here, R.C. 2929.22(C) provides that a court may impose the
maximum jail term on offenders who commit the worst forms of the offense or whose
conduct and response to prior sanctions demonstrate that such a sentence is necessary
to deter future crime. The phrase "worst forms of the offense" is not statutorily defined
and is left to the discretion of the trial court. State v. Elzey, 2025-Ohio-5322, ¶ 50 (2nd
Dist.). A trial court, however, is not required to make specific findings on the record before
imposing a maximum misdemeanor sentence. State v. Yeban, 2024-Ohio-2545, ¶ 69 (1st
Dist.). When the record is silent, reviewing courts presume the trial court considered the
appropriate statutory factors. Id. at ¶ 70.
{¶ 15} Accordingly, contrary to Hedrick's argument, the trial court was not required
to expressly find that he committed the worst form of the offense before imposing the
maximum sentence. Moreover, although Hedrick cites other cases he believes involved
more egregious conduct, we are not persuaded that his conduct falls outside the range
of behavior warranting a maximum sentence. After reviewing the record and Hedrick's
arguments, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
misdemeanor sentence. Hedrick's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 16} Judgment affirmed.
BYRNE , P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.
-5- Butler CA2025-11-128
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 Butler 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/ Robert A. Hendrickson, Judge
/s/ Melena S. Siebert, Judge
-6-