[Cite as State v. Maguire, 2025-Ohio-4421.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-L-036
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas
FRANCHESCA M. MAGUIRE, Trial Court No. 2024 CR 001194 Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: September 22, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor; Jennifer A. McGee, Melissa A. Blake, and Lauren K. Tuttle, Assistant Prosecutors, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Vanessa R. Clapp, Lake County Public Defender, and Paul J. Lubonovic, Assistant Public Defender, 100 West Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Defendant- Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Franchesca M. Maguire, appeals from the judgment
entry of sentence following her guilty pleas to two Endangering Children offenses in the
Lake County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
{¶2} On October 10, 2024, the Lake County Grand Jury issued a secret
indictment against Maguire for five counts of Endangering Children and one count of
Domestic Violence.
{¶3} On January 23, 2025, a change of plea hearing was held, and a written plea
agreement was filed. The trial court reviewed the charges, possible sentences, and the rights waived by pleading guilty. The State indicated that had the matter gone to trial, the
evidence would have shown the following: Maguire had assumed the role of loco parentis
to the minor victim, who was between the ages of six and seven during the relevant time
period; Maguire, along with her codefendant (the minor victim’s father), recklessly created
a substantial risk to the minor’s health and safety by violating her duty of care, support,
and protection, which resulted in serious physical harm to the minor; and Maguire, along
with her codefendant, recklessly and cruelly abused and/or tortured the minor victim. For
over a year, the child was, inter alia, deprived of food, forced to wear hand restraints,
restricted of access to the restroom and his bed, locked in the garage for significant
periods of time, physically punished, and psychologically abused. Maguire entered pleas
of guilty to two counts of Endangering Children: Count One, a third-degree felony in
violation of R.C. 2919.22(A), and a lesser-included offense of Count Three, a third-degree
felony in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(2). The trial court accepted the pleas and found
Maguire guilty of both offenses.
{¶4} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on February 27, 2025. Defense
counsel requested a term of community control; Maguire also addressed the court.
Prepared statements from the minor victim’s mother and sister were read to the court,
and the State presented video excerpts from law enforcement interviews with Maguire.
The State described Maguire’s conduct as “egregious,” the harm as “significant and long-
lasting,” and recommended maximum consecutive sentences. The court found that a
prison sentence was consistent with the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set
forth in R.C. 2929.11 and that Maguire was not amenable to available community control
sanctions. The court made consecutive-sentence findings and ordered Maguire to serve
consecutive prison terms of 36 months on Count One and 36 months on Count Three, for
PAGE 2 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-036 a total of 72 months. The court entered a nolle prosequi on all other counts in the
indictment.
{¶5} On February 28, 2025, the court journalized the judgment entry of sentence.
{¶6} Maguire timely appealed and raised two assignments of error in her merit
brief:
[1.] Maguire’s plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently because the trial court gave misleading information regarding judicial release.
[2.] The trial court erred when it declined to consider whether Ms. Maguire led a law-abiding life.
{¶7} Maguire subsequently moved to withdraw her first assignment of error
without objection from the State. We found the motion well taken and, therefore, consider
only her second assignment of error.
{¶8} Maguire contends that the trial court erred when determining her sentence
by expressly refusing to consider the weight of her law-abiding life prior to committing
these offenses.
{¶9} Our jurisdiction to review sentencing factors is limited under R.C.
2953.08(G)(2)(b). State v. Brunson, 2022-Ohio-4299, ¶ 69. “Under that provision, the
appellate court cannot 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., citing State v.
Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. “However, the appellate court is not prohibited from
reviewing a sentence ‘when the claim is that the sentence was improperly imposed based
on impermissible considerations.’” Id., quoting State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 22.
“Indeed, appellate courts are permitted to reverse or modify sentencing decisions that are
‘“‘otherwise contrary to law.’”’” Id., quoting Bryant at ¶ 22, quoting Jones at ¶ 32, quoting
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). PAGE 3 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-036 {¶10} When developing a defendant’s sentence, a trial court is required to
consider in its recidivism determination whether “[p]rior to committing the offense, the
offender had led a law-abiding life for a significant number of years.” R.C. 2929.12(A)
and (E)(3).
{¶11} At Maguire’s sentencing hearing, the trial court stated, “I refuse to make a
finding that she’s led a law-abiding life for a significant number of years while this abuse
took place over the course of a year[.]” Maguire contends that the court considered her
conduct that formed the basis for these offenses rather than considering whether she had
led a law-abiding life before the conduct underlying these offenses began, resulting in a
sentence that is contrary to law. We disagree. The trial judge did not refuse to consider
whether Maguire had led a law-abiding life for a significant number of years prior to
committing the offense but, rather, refused to make a finding that she had indeed done
so.
{¶12} Furthermore, a defendant’s law-abiding life is only one of multiple factors a
trial court considers when evaluating the defendant’s risk of recidivism under R.C.
2929.12(D) and (E). The trial court also considers the defendant’s juvenile delinquency
and criminal history, any substance-abuse issues, whether the offenses were committed
under circumstances not likely to recur, and whether the offender did or did not show
genuine remorse for the offenses. Here, the court considered that Maguire has no known
prior juvenile adjudications but that she does have a history of criminal convictions, finding
it “noteworthy that one is for domestic battery and that involved basically a child-
endangering-type situation.” The court also found that Maguire showed no genuine
remorse for these offenses, noting she was amused during her interrogation, had a smile
on her face, and was not shocked by the allegations.
PAGE 4 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-036 {¶13} The trial court was additionally required to consider the seriousness of the
conduct and other relevant factors to achieve the purposes and principles of felony
sentencing. R.C. 2929.12(B) and (C). The court found no mitigating factors. As to the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Maguire, 2025-Ohio-4421.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-L-036
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas
FRANCHESCA M. MAGUIRE, Trial Court No. 2024 CR 001194 Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: September 22, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor; Jennifer A. McGee, Melissa A. Blake, and Lauren K. Tuttle, Assistant Prosecutors, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Vanessa R. Clapp, Lake County Public Defender, and Paul J. Lubonovic, Assistant Public Defender, 100 West Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Defendant- Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Franchesca M. Maguire, appeals from the judgment
entry of sentence following her guilty pleas to two Endangering Children offenses in the
Lake County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
{¶2} On October 10, 2024, the Lake County Grand Jury issued a secret
indictment against Maguire for five counts of Endangering Children and one count of
Domestic Violence.
{¶3} On January 23, 2025, a change of plea hearing was held, and a written plea
agreement was filed. The trial court reviewed the charges, possible sentences, and the rights waived by pleading guilty. The State indicated that had the matter gone to trial, the
evidence would have shown the following: Maguire had assumed the role of loco parentis
to the minor victim, who was between the ages of six and seven during the relevant time
period; Maguire, along with her codefendant (the minor victim’s father), recklessly created
a substantial risk to the minor’s health and safety by violating her duty of care, support,
and protection, which resulted in serious physical harm to the minor; and Maguire, along
with her codefendant, recklessly and cruelly abused and/or tortured the minor victim. For
over a year, the child was, inter alia, deprived of food, forced to wear hand restraints,
restricted of access to the restroom and his bed, locked in the garage for significant
periods of time, physically punished, and psychologically abused. Maguire entered pleas
of guilty to two counts of Endangering Children: Count One, a third-degree felony in
violation of R.C. 2919.22(A), and a lesser-included offense of Count Three, a third-degree
felony in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(2). The trial court accepted the pleas and found
Maguire guilty of both offenses.
{¶4} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on February 27, 2025. Defense
counsel requested a term of community control; Maguire also addressed the court.
Prepared statements from the minor victim’s mother and sister were read to the court,
and the State presented video excerpts from law enforcement interviews with Maguire.
The State described Maguire’s conduct as “egregious,” the harm as “significant and long-
lasting,” and recommended maximum consecutive sentences. The court found that a
prison sentence was consistent with the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set
forth in R.C. 2929.11 and that Maguire was not amenable to available community control
sanctions. The court made consecutive-sentence findings and ordered Maguire to serve
consecutive prison terms of 36 months on Count One and 36 months on Count Three, for
PAGE 2 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-036 a total of 72 months. The court entered a nolle prosequi on all other counts in the
indictment.
{¶5} On February 28, 2025, the court journalized the judgment entry of sentence.
{¶6} Maguire timely appealed and raised two assignments of error in her merit
brief:
[1.] Maguire’s plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently because the trial court gave misleading information regarding judicial release.
[2.] The trial court erred when it declined to consider whether Ms. Maguire led a law-abiding life.
{¶7} Maguire subsequently moved to withdraw her first assignment of error
without objection from the State. We found the motion well taken and, therefore, consider
only her second assignment of error.
{¶8} Maguire contends that the trial court erred when determining her sentence
by expressly refusing to consider the weight of her law-abiding life prior to committing
these offenses.
{¶9} Our jurisdiction to review sentencing factors is limited under R.C.
2953.08(G)(2)(b). State v. Brunson, 2022-Ohio-4299, ¶ 69. “Under that provision, the
appellate court cannot 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., citing State v.
Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. “However, the appellate court is not prohibited from
reviewing a sentence ‘when the claim is that the sentence was improperly imposed based
on impermissible considerations.’” Id., quoting State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 22.
“Indeed, appellate courts are permitted to reverse or modify sentencing decisions that are
‘“‘otherwise contrary to law.’”’” Id., quoting Bryant at ¶ 22, quoting Jones at ¶ 32, quoting
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). PAGE 3 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-036 {¶10} When developing a defendant’s sentence, a trial court is required to
consider in its recidivism determination whether “[p]rior to committing the offense, the
offender had led a law-abiding life for a significant number of years.” R.C. 2929.12(A)
and (E)(3).
{¶11} At Maguire’s sentencing hearing, the trial court stated, “I refuse to make a
finding that she’s led a law-abiding life for a significant number of years while this abuse
took place over the course of a year[.]” Maguire contends that the court considered her
conduct that formed the basis for these offenses rather than considering whether she had
led a law-abiding life before the conduct underlying these offenses began, resulting in a
sentence that is contrary to law. We disagree. The trial judge did not refuse to consider
whether Maguire had led a law-abiding life for a significant number of years prior to
committing the offense but, rather, refused to make a finding that she had indeed done
so.
{¶12} Furthermore, a defendant’s law-abiding life is only one of multiple factors a
trial court considers when evaluating the defendant’s risk of recidivism under R.C.
2929.12(D) and (E). The trial court also considers the defendant’s juvenile delinquency
and criminal history, any substance-abuse issues, whether the offenses were committed
under circumstances not likely to recur, and whether the offender did or did not show
genuine remorse for the offenses. Here, the court considered that Maguire has no known
prior juvenile adjudications but that she does have a history of criminal convictions, finding
it “noteworthy that one is for domestic battery and that involved basically a child-
endangering-type situation.” The court also found that Maguire showed no genuine
remorse for these offenses, noting she was amused during her interrogation, had a smile
on her face, and was not shocked by the allegations.
PAGE 4 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-036 {¶13} The trial court was additionally required to consider the seriousness of the
conduct and other relevant factors to achieve the purposes and principles of felony
sentencing. R.C. 2929.12(B) and (C). The court found no mitigating factors. As to the
seriousness of Maguire’s conduct, the court found that the minor victim suffered serious
physical and psychological harm and that Maguire acted as part of organized criminal
activity with her codefendant (the minor victim’s father). The court concluded that their
actions “can only be described as cruel. I find you to be a manipulator. I have people
who come through here who do very, very bad things and I don’t know if I’ve ever said
this to someone before, but you are just a bad person and there is no fixing that.”
{¶14} These facts as found by the trial court, even without the law-abiding life
consideration, demonstrate that the outcome of the sentencing hearing would not have
been different. Accordingly, Maguire cannot succeed under her sentencing-factor
argument. See, e.g., Brunson, 2022-Ohio-4299, at ¶ 90 (where the trial court’s error in
considering the defendant’s decision to waive allocation and remain silent at sentencing
when assessing his lack of remorse did not affect the defendant’s sentence).
{¶15} Maguire’s second assignment of error is without merit.
{¶16} We affirm the Lake County Court of Common Pleas’ judgment entry of
sentence.
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
concur.
PAGE 5 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-036 JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, the judgment and order of this
court is that the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
JUDGE MATT LYNCH
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI, concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 6 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-036