State v. Mallow

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 12, 2026
• Docket: 2025-CA-26
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Mallow, 2026-Ohio-2204.]

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

STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2025-CA-26 Appellee : : Trial Court Case Nos. 2023 CR 149; v. : 2025 CR 104 : ZAKYE RYAN MALLOW : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas : Court) Appellant : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & OPINION ...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on June 12, 2026, the judgments of the

trial court are 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,

CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, JUDGE

TUCKER, J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur. OPINION CHAMPAIGN C.A. No. 2025-CA-26

ROBERT ALAN BRENNER, Attorney for Appellant JANE A. NAPIER, Attorney for Appellee

EPLEY, J.

{¶ 1} Zakye Ryan Mallow appeals from judgments of the Champaign County Court of

Common Pleas that (1) revoked his community control in Champaign C.P. No. 2023 CR 149

and sentenced him to 36 months in prison and (2) imposed a one-year sentence and $500

fine for trafficking in marijuana in Champaign C.P. No. 2025 CR 104. For the following

reasons, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} In July 2023, 19-year-old Mallow planned the assault of C.S. with Daniel Clark.

Mallow lured C.S. to a wooded bike path where Clark then attacked C.S. with a railroad

spike and a rock. C.S. was hit repeatedly in the head, and one of his eyes was swollen shut.

Mallow pulled Clark from C.S. and stopped the assault from progressing further; Mallow was

injured in the process. In addition, Mallow helped C.S. seek emergency medical intervention

after the assault. Mallow then repeatedly lied about his involvement to law enforcement and

attempted to “cover up” for Clark. See, e.g., Tr. 32, 40.

{¶ 3} In August 2023, Mallow was indicted in Case No. 2023 CR 149 on two counts

of felonious assault, both felonies of the second degree, and one count of obstructing justice,

a felony of the third degree. Two months later, Mallow pled guilty to obstructing justice, and

the two felonious assault counts were dismissed.

{¶ 4} On November 1, 2023, after a presentence investigation, the trial court

sentenced Mallow to four years of community control. It noted as mitigating circumstances

2 Mallow’s actions to halt the attack on C.S. and to assist him in obtaining medical care,

Mallow’s childhood in a group home environment, his genuine remorse, and his motivation

to seek treatment for his substance abuse. The victim and the State supported the non-

imposition of a prison term. The conditions of community control included, among other

things, that Mallow complete the West Central Community Based Correctional Facility

program, obtain a GED, and not consume alcohol or non-prescribed drugs, including

marijuana. Mallow did not appeal from his conviction.

{¶ 5} Approximately two weeks later, Mallow was unsuccessfully discharged from

West Central due to his “significant mental health issues.” Mallow’s probation officer

requested a community control violation hearing, and Mallow admitted to the violation. The

trial court continued Mallow on community control, removing the condition that he complete

the West Central program and adding conditions regarding mental health treatment.

{¶ 6} Almost two years later, on September 24, 2025, Mallow’s probation officer filed

a notice that Mallow had violated two conditions of his community control by (1) possessing

and using marijuana and permitting drug abuse and (2) twice traveling out of state without

permission.

{¶ 7} At a hearing on October 3, 2025, the State indicated that the parties had

reached an agreement regarding the alleged violations, as well as a new charge. Mallow

would admit to the community control violations in Case No. 2023 CR 149 and would plead

guilty to a bill of information charging one count of trafficking in marijuana, a fifth-degree

felony, in Case No. 2025 CR 104. The State would recommend at sentencing that Mallow’s

community control be revoked in Case No. 2023 CR 149 and that the court impose a

sentence to be served concurrently with Case No. 2025 CR 104. Mallow agreed to forfeit

3 certain items to the Urbana Police Department and to pay court costs and court-appointed

counsel fees. The parties waived a presentence investigation report (“PSI”) for the new case.

{¶ 8} After defense counsel concurred with the prosecutor’s recitation of the

agreement, the trial court engaged in a plea colloquy with Mallow, addressing both cases.

The court accepted Mallow’s admission to the community control violations and his guilty

plea in Case No. 2025 CR 104. Before proceeding to sentencing, the trial court allowed

counsel to review the PSI that had been prepared prior to Mallow’s 2023 sentencing. The

court indicated that it also would consider the community control violation report prepared

by the Adult Parole Authority as well as letters sent to the court by Mallow on November 29,

2023, and October 1, 2025.

{¶ 9} The court then heard from the prosecutor, defense counsel, and Mallow. The

State argued that Mallow had not been “fully engaged in community control sanctions well

before committing the new offenses.” It highlighted Mallow’s sleeping during Thinking for a

Change, inconsistent attendance at certain programming, failure to maintain employment,

and consistent use of THC. The prosecutor noted that Mallow had been warned for

disorderly conduct in July 2024 and committed disorderly conduct in February 2025, where

he admitted to carrying a baton and brandishing it during a verbal altercation. The State

described how Mallow had committed trafficking in marijuana—traveling to obtain marijuana

and making references to obtaining a gun to use in future trafficking endeavors. Mallow had

made calls from jail that spoke of his plans to “hunt for heads” of his co-defendants in the

trafficking incident. He also had issues with corrections officers. The State argued that

Mallow displayed “high criminal attitudes with strong ties to violence, lack of empathy, and

retaliation antics” and maintained poor peer associations. The prosecutor asked the court to

revoke his community control and impose 36 months in prison.

4 {¶ 10} Defense counsel also described Mallow’s trafficking offense, stating that

Mallow had obtained marijuana for himself and two friends for their own purposes. Counsel

noted that Mallow was articulate and was a “candidate worth giving a shot.” He indicated

that Mallow had not been ready for West Central previously but could likely benefit from the

program now. Counsel asked the court to consider sending Mallow to West Central before

imposing prison.

{¶ 11} Speaking on his own behalf, Mallow emphasized the progress he had made

in many aspects of his life, and he asked the court not to “throw it all away.” He stated that

his “only wish [was] to try and put this all behind me and continue to make positive changes

and surrounding [sic] myself with family with the precious time that I have left.”

{¶ 12} The trial court explained its thought processes to Mallow, beginning with its

reasons for originally imposing community control and returning him to community control

after his first violation. The court also discussed its prohibition on Mallow’s use of marijuana

and possessing a firearm. It noted that Mallow had “made some outlandish statements with

regard to wanting to use a firearm. Both in South Carolina with regard to a particular race of

people. As well as to the corrections officers at our jail.” During the court’s exchange with

Mallow, Mallow conceded that his probation officer had warned him multiple times about

positive tests for THC, his peer associations, and the importance of obtaining employment.

Mallow was also growing marijuana. While noting Mallow’s intelligence and “a certain

introspective gift,” the trial court found that he had “this anger and aggressive nature . . . that

is alarming.” The court emphasized Mallow’s lack of remorse regarding the new charge, his

retaliatory communications regarding his co-defendants, and his statements about wanting

to put bullets into corrections officers.

5 {¶ 13} The trial court revoked Mallow’s community control and imposed 36 months in

prison, to be served concurrently with the one-year sentence in Case No. 2025 CR 104. In

doing so, the court told Mallow that it had considered and applied the purposes and

principles of sentencing and the relevant factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

{¶ 14} Mallow appeals from the revocation of his community control, raising one

assignment of error. Although Mallow’s notice of appeal also includes Case No. 2025 CR

104, he has not raised any assignments of error related to that case. Accordingly, the

judgment in Case No. 2025 CR 104 is summarily affirmed.

II. Imposition of 36-Month Sentence

{¶ 15} In his assignment of error, Mallow claims that the trial court erred by

sentencing him to 36 months in prison in violation of R.C. 2929.11. He emphasizes that he

had made significant progress while on community control, including his “mental, physical,

and emotional health,” his education, his “responses to situations,” and his “honesty and

cooperation with authority.” He further points to his remorse and family support. Mallow

asserts that the court should have imposed a more lenient sentence.

{¶ 16} R.C. 2929.15(B) governs the penalties available to the sentencing court when

an offender violates community control. In felony cases, if the conditions of a community

control sanction are violated or if the offender violates a law or leaves the state without

permission, the trial court may (1) lengthen the term of the community control sanction;

(2) impose a more restrictive community control sanction; or (3) impose a prison term on the

offender, subject to certain limitations. R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(a) through (c).

{¶ 17} “[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.). “For all revocations, the prison

6 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.” State v. Monroe, 2020-

Ohio-597, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.), citing R.C. 2929.15(B)(3); see also State v. Howard, 2020-Ohio-

3195, ¶ 22 (trial court is not required to renotify defendant of the potential prison term for a

violation of community control).

{¶ 18} We review sentences imposed upon revocation of an offender’s community

control under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). E.g., State v. Von Ward,

2016-Ohio-5733 (2d Dist.) (applying State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002). Under that statute,

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

sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds either

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

imposed is contrary to law. State v. King, 2024-Ohio-5347, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 19} “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.). “It is enough that the record demonstrates that the trial court considered

R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 prior to imposing its sentence.” State v. Trent, 2021-Ohio-

3698, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.). “A sentence is contrary to law when it does not fall within the statutory

range for the offense or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony

sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12.”

State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-8416, ¶ 74 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 20} R.C. 2929.11 requires trial courts to be guided by the overriding purposes of

felony sentencing. Those purposes are threefold: “to protect the public from future crime by

7 the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the effective rehabilitation of

the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those

purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.”

R.C. 2929.11(A). “[A] sentencing court may place such weight on each of the purposes as

the circumstances of the case require.” State v. Bittner, 2019-Ohio-3834, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 21} R.C. 2929.12(B) sets forth ten factors indicating that an offender’s conduct is

more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense; R.C. 2929.12(C) sets forth four

factors indicating that an offender’s conduct is less serious than conduct normally

constituting the offense. R.C. 2929.12(D) and (E) each list five factors that trial courts are to

consider regarding the offender’s likelihood of committing future crimes. For each of these

categories, the trial court may also consider “any other relevant factors.” Finally,

R.C. 2929.12(F) requires the sentencing court to consider the offender’s military service

record, if any, and whether the offender has a condition traceable to that service that

contributed to the commission of the offense.

{¶ 22} The Ohio Supreme Court has stated 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.” State v.

Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. Accordingly, “[w]hen reviewing felony sentences that are

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

analyze whether those sentences are unsupported by the record.” State v. McDaniel, 2021-

Ohio-1519, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 23} Jones does not preclude claims that a sentence was imposed based on

impermissible considerations, namely considerations that fall outside of R.C. 2929.11 and

2929.12. State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878. That exception is inapplicable here.

8 {¶ 24} In this case, we cannot conclude that the court’s 36-month prison sentence is

clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record or contrary to law. Mallow does not

dispute that his 36-month sentence was within the statutory range, nor does he claim that

the trial court failed to inform him at his original sentencing that a 36-month prison sentence

could be imposed if he violated his community control. The trial court complied with its

obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when imposing the 36-month sentence. We

may not independently “weigh the evidence in the record and substitute [our] 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.

{¶ 25} Mallow’s assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 26} The trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

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

TUCKER, J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.