State v. Hookfin

2025 Ohio 5547

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 12, 2025
• Docket: 2025-CA-32
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Hookfin, 2025-Ohio-5547.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2025-CA-32 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 25-CR-026 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas RYAN D. HOOKFIN : Court) : Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on December 12, 2025, the judgment

of the trial court is affirmed.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

For the court,

MARY K. HUFFMAN, JUDGE

EPLEY, P.J., and TUCKER, J., concur. OPINION CLARK C.A. No. 2025-CA-32

CHRIS BECK, Attorney for Appellant ANDREW P. PICKERING, Attorney for Appellee

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} Ryan Hookfin appeals from his conviction of one count of failure to comply with

an order or signal of a police officer (“failure to comply”). For the reasons that follow, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} The events giving rise to this matter occurred on December 28, 2024, after the

driver of an SUV reported to police that a white sedan driven by Hookfin was pursuing and

attempting to ram his vehicle. Responding officers located Hoofkin in his vehicle and

activated lights and sirens behind him. He stopped briefly, but then fled. Hookfin’s vehicle

was subsequently seen running a red light and again attempting to strike the SUV before

Hoofkin was finally stopped.

{¶ 3} On January 14, 2025, Hookfin was indicted on one count of felonious assault

and one count of failure to comply. On April 9, 2025, Hookfin pleaded guilty to failure to

comply. In exchange for his plea, the felonious assault charge was dismissed, and a pre-

sentence investigation report was ordered. A sentencing hearing followed where the trial

court imposed a sentence of 12 months in prison. Hookfin filed a timely notice of appeal.

Assignment of Error and Analysis

{¶ 4} Hookfin asserts one assignment of error arguing that the trial court “failed to

properly [weigh] the principals of sentencing” and erred in imposing a 12-month prison term

2 “instead of a term of probation supervision.” The State responds that Hookfin’s sentence is

not contrary to law.

{¶ 5} “The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized

statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for

imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v. King, 2013-Ohio-2021, ¶ 45

(2d Dist.), citing State v. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856, paragraph seven of the syllabus. However,

a trial court must consider the statutory criteria that apply to every felony offense, including

those set out in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. State v. Leopard, 2011-Ohio-3864, ¶ 11

(2d Dist.), citing State v. Mathis, 2006-Ohio-855, ¶ 38.

{¶ 6} When reviewing felony sentences, we must apply the standard of review set

forth in R.C. 2953.08(G). State v. Worthen, 2021-Ohio-2788, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.). Pursuant to

this statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or vacate it

altogether and remand for resentencing, if it “‘clearly and convincingly’ finds either (1) the

record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the sentence imposed is

contrary to law.” Id. The Supreme Court of Ohio has observed that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b)

“‘does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its

view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.’” Id.

at ¶ 14, quoting State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. Thus, when we review a felony

sentence imposed after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, we do not

examine whether the sentence is unsupported by the record. Id., quoting State v. McDaniel,

2021-Ohio-1519, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.). Rather, we simply determine whether the sentence is

contrary to law. Id., quoting State v. Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.); Jones at ¶ 26-

29. A sentence is contrary to law when it falls outside the statutory range for the offense or

3 if the sentencing court does not consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. State v. Brown, 2017-

Ohio-8416, ¶ 74 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 7} Hookfin was convicted of failure to comply causing a substantial risk of serious

physical harm to persons or property in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) and

2921.331(C)(5)(a)(ii).1 The record reflects that at disposition, the court indicated that it had

thoroughly considered the purposes and principles of sentencing and the seriousness and

recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The court additionally indicated that it had

considered all the factors set forth in R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(b) based upon the application of

division (C)(5)(a)(ii).

{¶ 8} R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a) states: “For a felony of third degree that is a violation of

. . . division (B) of section 2921.331 of the Revised Code if division (C)(5) of that section

applies, the prison term shall be a definite term of twelve, eighteen twenty-four, thirty, thirty-

six, forty-two, forty-eight, fifty-four, or sixty months.” (Emphasis added.) Put differently,

Hookfin’s minimum prison sentence for failure to comply is not contrary to law. Hookfin’s

assigned error is overruled.

Conclusion

Having overruled Hoofkin’s assignment of error, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed.

.............

EPLEY, P.J., and TUCKER, J., concur.

1 Hookfin’s indictment, plea form, and judgment entry of conviction incorrectly cite “R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(ii)” instead of R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a)(ii).