State v. Kintz

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 1, 2026
• Docket: 2025-CA-48
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Kintz, 2026-Ohio-1584.]

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

STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2025-CA-48 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2023 CR 0625 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas SHANE MICAH KINTZ : Court) : Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on May 1, 2026, 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,

ROBERT G. HANSEMAN, JUDGE

EPLEY, J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur. OPINION GREENE C.A. No. 2025-CA-48

LUCAS WILDER, Attorney for Appellant MEGAN HAMMOND, Attorney for Appellee

HANSEMAN, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Shane Micah Kintz, appeals from the 36-month sentence

imposed upon the revocation of his community control sanctions. Kintz argues that the

prison sentence for his conviction for attempted aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of

the third degree, is contrary to law. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment

of the trial court.

I. Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 2} On November 22, 2023, Kintz was indicted for aggravated possession of drugs,

a felony of the second degree, and possession of drugs, a felony of the fifth degree. On

May 15, 2024, Kintz entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to attempted

aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the third degree, and the State dismissed count

two of the indictment. Kintz was sentenced to community control sanctions (“CCS”) on June

26, 2024. At the time of his sentencing, the trial court advised Kintz that if he violated the

terms and conditions of his CCS, he could receive a prison sentence of up to 36 months.

{¶ 3} Kintz signed a written copy of the conditions of his CCS at his sentencing

hearing. Of relevance, Kintz was required to obey all laws and not be charged or convicted

of any violation of law. Kintz was also required to report any arrest, citation, violation of law,

or contact with a law enforcement officer to his supervising officer no later than the next

business day. Kintz was further required to abstain from the use or possession of illegal

2 drugs and to maintain his current residence or report a new residential address to his

supervising officer.

{¶ 4} On June 16, 2025, a notice of CCS violations was filed alleging Kintz absconded

from supervision and was arrested and charged with new offenses. A supplemental report

followed, which alleged that on June 7, 2025, Kintz was arrested and charged with rape,

contributing to the delinquency of a minor, corrupting another with drugs, trafficking in drugs

and possession of drugs. The report also claimed that Kintz did not report his arrest or

charges to his supervising officer and failed to maintain his residential address as required.

The trial court issued a capias, and Kintz was later arrested on July 21, 2025. The court set

a probable cause revocation hearing on July 29, 2025.

{¶ 5} At the probable cause hearing, Kintz was represented by counsel. Kintz waived

the hearing and requested the matter be scheduled for an evidentiary hearing, which was

scheduled for August 20, 2025. At the evidentiary hearing, the court held an in-chambers

conference with counsel for Kintz and counsel for the State, and it was informed that Kintz

was waiving the evidentiary hearing. When the court went on the record, the court asked the

parties again if Kintz was waiving his hearing and consenting to sentencing, to which Kintz’s

counsel indicated yes. The court directly asked Kintz if he agreed with what was stated, and

he responded, “Yes, sir.” Revocation/Sentencing (Sept. 4, 2025) Tr. 2. There was no

discussion on the record of what sanctions or length of prison term was being imposed. The

trial court read its sentencing entry on the record, stated that the prison sentence is

consistent with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and imposed a 36-month prison sentence. This

appeal followed.

3 II. The 36-Month Sentence Imposed is Not Contrary to Law

{¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, Kintz argues that his 36-month prison sentence

is contrary to law. Kintz contends that because his CCS violations were based primarily on

offenses that had not resulted in criminal convictions, his sentence is contrary to law. In

response, the State asserts that Kintz violated CCS regardless of being convicted of a new

offense, and that Kintz further waived his right to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D).

{¶ 7} R.C. 2953.08 provides:

(A) In addition to any other right to appeal and except as provided in

division (D) of this section, a defendant who is convicted of or pleads guilty to

a felony may appeal as a matter of right the sentence imposed upon the

defendant on one of the following grounds:

(1) The sentence consisted of or included the maximum definite prison

term allowed for the offense by division (A) of section 2929.14 or section

2929.142 of the Revised Code or, with respect to a non-life felony indefinite

prison term, the longest minimum prison term allowed for the offense by

division (A)(1)(a) or (2)(a) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code, the

maximum definite prison term or longest minimum prison term was not

required for the offense pursuant to Chapter 2925. or any other provision of

the Revised Code, and the court imposed the sentence under one of the

following circumstances:

(a) The sentence was imposed for only one offense.

...

(4) The sentence is contrary to law.

4 However, “[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this section

if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the defendant and

the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” R.C. 2953.08(D)(1).

{¶ 8} We do not agree with the State’s position that under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), Kintz

waived his right to appeal his sentence as a matter of law. The record of the sentencing

hearing does not reveal that after Kintz waived his evidentiary hearing, he and the State

jointly recommended the 36-month prison sentence. Instead, this part of the record

demonstrates only that Kintz consented to sentencing after he waived his hearing and

admitted CCS violations. Therefore, we review Kintz’s sentence.

{¶ 9} “‘When reviewing felony sentences, a court of appeals must apply the standard

of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G).’” State v. Burt, 2025-Ohio-1758, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.),

quoting State v. Williams, 2022-Ohio-2897, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Farra, 2022-Ohio-

1421, ¶ 73 (2d Dist.). This is also true of our review of felony sentences imposed upon

violations of CCS. State v. Masters, 2025-Ohio-1763, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Tolle,

2024-Ohio-4709, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.) (“[a]ppellate review of prison sentences imposed for

violations of felony community control sanctions is governed by the standard set forth in

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)”).

{¶ 10} While R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that “[t]he court hearing an appeal under

division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings

underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court,” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)

further instructs that “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing

court abused its discretion.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

{¶ 11} Instead, the statute states that “[t]he appellate court may increase, reduce, or

otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence

5 and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. . . . The appellate court may

take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either . . .

(a) [t]hat 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) [t]hat the sentence is

otherwise contrary to law.” Id.

{¶ 12} “Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is

more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty

as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the

mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.”

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

{¶ 13} The term “contrary to law” means “‘in violation of statute or legal regulations at

a given time.’” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 34, citing Black’s Law Dictionary

(6th Ed. 1990). Additionally, “[a] sentence is contrary to law when it falls outside the statutory

range for the offense or if the sentencing court does not consider R.C. 2929.11 and

2929.12.” Burt, 2025-Ohio-1758, at ¶ 24 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Bartley, 2023-Ohio-2325,

¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 14} “‘For all [community control] revocations, the prison term must be within the

range of prison terms available for the offense for which community control had been

imposed and the term may not exceed the prison term specified in the notice provided to the

offender at the original sentencing hearing.’” (Bracketed text in original.) Masters, 2025-

Ohio-1763, at ¶ 20 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Monroe, 2020-Ohio-597, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.), citing

R.C. 2929.15(B)(3). “At the original sentencing hearing, the trial court must ‘notify the

offender of the specific prison term that may be imposed for a violation of the conditions of

6 [a community control] sanction, as a prerequisite to imposing a prison term on the offender

for a subsequent violation.’” Id., quoting State v. Brooks, 2004-Ohio-4746, ¶ 29.

{¶ 15} R.C. 2929.15(B)(1) further gives trial courts the ability to sanction offenders

appropriately when the offender violates community control sanctions. One of the trial court’s

options is to sentence the offender to a prison term. R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c).

{¶ 16} “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. Imposing

the maximum sentence which is authorized by law does not equate to a sentence which is

contrary to law. See State v. Beverly, 2016-Ohio-8078, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.); State v. Brown, 2019-

Ohio-3288 (2d Dist.) (maximum sentence of 12 months on a felony of the fifth degree was

not contrary to law).

{¶ 17} Following Kintz’s waiver of hearing and admission to CCS violations at his

sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a 36-month sentence for the offense of attempted

aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the third degree. This sentence falls within the

statutory range for the level of the offense. R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b) (“For a felony of the third

degree that is not an offense for which division (A)(3)(a) of this section applies, the prison

term shall be a definite term of nine, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, thirty, or thirty-six

months”).1 At Kintz’s original sentencing hearing, he had been advised of the maximum 36-

month sentence that could be imposed if he violated the conditions of his CCS. The court

had then stated, “I’m obligated to tell you what happens if you violate your probation. I’m

1. We note that Kintz’s offense was not one of the ones specified in R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a).

7 going to put you in prison for three-years. No one wants that but I’ll do it.”2 Final Disposition

Hearing (June 26, 2024) Tr. 3. At both sentencing hearings, the trial court stated that it

considered the statutory criteria that apply to every felony offense, specifically R.C. 2929.11

and 2929.12. Therefore, Kintz’s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law and

does not violate Brooks, 2004-Ohio-4746.

{¶ 18} Kintz argues that he had been only arrested for new offenses, not convicted,

and that this fact makes his sentence contrary to law. We do not agree. Kintz waived his

probable cause and CCS revocation evidentiary hearings, and did not address this issue

with the trial court. The failure to raise issues before the trial court waives all but plain error.

State v. Roberts, 2017-Ohio-481, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Klosterman, 2016-Ohio-232,

¶ 15 (2d Dist.). We do not find plain error on this record. Kintz admitted to being arrested for

violating the law and failing to report the contact with law enforcement to his probation officer.

Kintz also admitted that he changed his residence and did not provide his probation officer

with his new address. “[A] revocation of community control punishes the failure to comply

with the terms and conditions of community control, not the specific conduct that led to the

revocation.” State v. Black, 2011-Ohio-1273, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.). Under the circumstances

presented in this case, we see no error in the trial court’s imposition of the maximum 36-

month sentence. Kintz’s assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 19} Having overruled Kintz’s assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the

trial court.

2. While the sentencing court stated Kintz’s sentence in terms of years instead of the statutory language of 36-months, Kintz does not raise this as an error. A 3-year term is equivalent to a 36-month term, and any error of the trial court in imposing the alternate 3- year sentence upon a CCS violation is de minimus and does not amount to reversable error. State v. Stennett, 2022-Ohio-4645 (8th Dist.).

8 ............

EPLEY, J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.