State v. Lusby

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 28, 2026
• Docket: 25-CAA-11-0097
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Lusby, 2026-Ohio-1985.]

IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO Case No. 25-CAA-11-0097

Plaintiff – Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Muskiingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.24 CRI 12-0706 BRANDEN L. LUSBY Judgment: Affirmed

Defendant - Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: May 28, 2026

BEFORE: William B. Hoffman, Robert G. Montgomery, and Kevin W. Popham, Judges

APPEARANCES: Melissa A. Schiffel (Prosecuting Attorney), Kathryn Munger, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Jonathan W. Klein, for Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

Popham, J.,

{¶1} Appellant, Branden Lusby (“Lusby”), appeals the October 7, 2025,

judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Ohio revoking his

community control and imposing a prison sentence. For the reasons below, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On December 5, 2024, a Delaware County Grand Jury indicted Lusby on the

following: Count One, grand theft of a motor vehicle, a felony of the fourth degree; Counts

Two and Three, failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer (“FTC”),

felonies of the third degree; and Count Four, assault, a felony of the fourth degree. {¶3} On April 23, 2025, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Lusby entered

guilty pleas to Count Three (FTC) and Count Four (assault). In exchange, the State

dismissed Counts One and Two. The trial court accepted Lusby’s pleas, ordered a

presentence investigation report, and deferred sentencing. (Judgment Entry, Apr. 23,

2025).

{¶4} On July 17, 2025, the trial court sentenced Lusby to three years of

community control subject to specified conditions. Those conditions required Lusby to

remain in custody until placement at the West Central Community Based Correctional

Facility (“CBCF”), successfully complete the CBCF program, refrain from committing new

offenses, and report to probation upon release. The trial court also notified Lusby that, in

the event of a violation, it reserved prison terms of 60 months on Count Three and 18

months on Count Four. (Judgment Entry, Jul. 18, 2025).

{¶5} On August 26, 2025, the State filed a motion to revoke Lusby’s community

control. On October 6, 2025, the trial court conducted a violation hearing, at which Lusby

admitted that he violated the conditions of his community control by being unsuccessfully

terminated from the CBCF program and by being arrested and convicted of obstructing

official business and resisting arrest in Marysville, Ohio1. (Tr. Violation Hearing at 4, 8).

{¶6} After hearing from the parties and Lusby, the trial court considered the

presentence investigation report, the July 5, 2025, psychological evaluation - requested

by Lusby’s attorney - and the September 22, 2025, violation report. The court revoked

Lusby’s community control and imposed a prison sentence of 30 months on Count Three

Lusby was arrested on August 25, 2025, and convicted in Marysville Municipal Court, Case 1

Number CRB2500400, on September 17, 2025, for Obstructing Official Business and Resisting arrest. (FTC) and 15 months on Count Four (assault), to be served consecutively, for an aggregate

term of 45 months. (Judgment Entry, Oct. 7, 2025).

Assignment of Error

{¶7} Lusby raises one assignment of error:

{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY WEIGH THE

SERIOUSNESS FACTORS SET FORTH IN R.C. 2929.12.”

Standard of Review

{¶9} Community control is a privilege conditioned upon compliance with court-

imposed terms. A violation of those conditions justifies revocation and the imposition of

a reserved prison sentence. State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-3235, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.); State v.

Yates, 2026-Ohio-1220, ¶ 17 (4th Dist.).

{¶10} The decision to revoke community control lies within the sound discretion

of the trial court. State v. Garrett, 2011-Ohio-691, ¶ 13 (5th Dist.); State v. Brock, 2018-

Ohio-3404, ¶ 29 (5th Dist.). Upon finding a violation, the court may extend community

control, impose more restrictive sanctions, or revoke community control and impose a

prison term within the range authorized by R.C. 2929.14(A). See, R.C. 2929.15(C).

{¶11} A sentence imposed following a community control violation is reviewed

under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Demangone, 2023-Ohio-2522, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.); State

v. Elliott, 2023-Ohio-1459, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.); State v. Hogya, 2024-Ohio-639, ¶ 11 (11th

Dist.). An appellate court may modify or vacate a sentence only if it clearly and

convincingly finds that the record does not support the trial court’s findings or that the

sentence is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-

3177, ¶ 28. {¶12} In conducting appellate review, this Court considers the entire record but

may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the trial court in

applying R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42.

{¶13} A sentence is not contrary to law where the trial court considers the

purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, weighs the seriousness and

recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, and imposes a sentence within the permissible

statutory range. State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.); State v. Trager,

2026-Ohio-250, ¶ 12 (5th Dist.).

Analysis

{¶14} The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in

revoking Lusby’s community control and imposing consecutive prison terms. It did not.

{¶15} The record demonstrates that Lusby admitted to violating the conditions of

his community control. Specifically, he was unsuccessfully terminated from the CBCF

program and committed new criminal offenses while under supervision. These violations

alone justified revocation.

{¶16} The trial court further considered Lusby’s history and characteristics,

including his extensive criminal record. Lusby’s criminal conduct began as a juvenile in

2009 and continued into adulthood. He had previously been terminated unsuccessfully

from community control in both 2016 and 2018, resulting in prior prison sentences. (Tr.

Violation Hearing at 14-17.) Despite multiple opportunities for rehabilitation, Lusby

reoffended.

{¶17} The court also reviewed the presentence investigation report, the

psychological evaluation, and the violation report before imposing sentence. This record

reflects that the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.

Moreover, the sentence for failure to comply was subject to the mandatory consecutive

sentencing provisions of R.C. 2921.331(D).

{¶18} Although Lusby argues that the trial court failed to properly weigh those

factors, this Court may not reweigh them. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729. The question is not

whether this Court would have imposed the same sentence, but whether the sentence is

contrary to law or unsupported by the record. It is neither. The trial court imposed

sentences within the statutory range and did not impose the maximum available terms.

{¶19} On this record, Lusby has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s

decision to revoke his community control and to impose the reserved prison sentence was

unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable, or that his sentence is clearly and

convincingly contrary to law.

Conclusion

{¶20} The trial court acted within its discretion in revoking Lusby’s community

control and imposing consecutive prison terms. The sentence is supported by the record

and complies with applicable law.

{¶21} Lusby’s sole assignment of error is overruled. {¶22} For the reasons set forth in the preceding Opinion, the judgment of the

Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Ohio is affirmed.

{¶23} Costs to be paid by Appellant Branden Lusby.

By: Popham, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Montgomery, J., concur