[Cite as State v. McQueen, 2025-Ohio-1959.]
COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Robert G. Montgomery, J. -vs-
JACOB MCQUEEN Case No. 24CA000024
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 23CR08-0204
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 30, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
CHARLES T. MCCONVILLE TODD W. BARSTOW Knox County Prosecuting Attorney 14 North Park Place 117 East High Street Newark, Ohio 43055 Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050 Hoffman, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Jacob McQueen appeals the judgment entered by the
Knox County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his plea of guilty to felonious
assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)), and sentencing him to a term of incarceration of six to nine
years. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} In August of 2023, an officer from the Danville Police Department went to
Appellant’s residence to serve an arrest warrant. Appellant fled, running to another
residence. The officer chased Appellant, and the two engaged in a “physical tussle.” Tr.
10. The officer sustained permanent nerve damage to his right arm and hand as a result
of the tussle with Appellant.
{¶3} Appellant was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury with felonious
assault, resisting arrest, and possession of drug abuse instruments. Appellant entered a
plea of guilty to felonious assault, and was convicted upon his plea. The State dismissed
the remaining charges. The case proceeded immediately to sentencing. The parties
jointly recommended a sentence of four to six years of incarceration. The trial court
sentenced Appellant to a term of six to nine years of incarceration. It is from the October
28, 2024 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal.
{¶4} Appellate counsel for Appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), rehearing den., 388 U.S. 924,
indicating the within appeal is wholly frivolous. In Anders, the United States Supreme
Court held if, after a conscientious examination of the record, a defendant's counsel
concludes the case is wholly frivolous, then he or she should so advise the court and
request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744. Counsel must accompany the request with a brief identifying anything in the record which could arguably support the appeal. Id.
Counsel also must: (1) furnish the client with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw,
and (2) allow the client sufficient time to raise any matters the client chooses. Id. Once
the defendant's counsel satisfies these requirements, the appellate court must fully
examine the proceedings below to determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If
the appellate court also determines the appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel's
request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements,
or may proceed to a decision on the merits if state law so requires. Id.
{¶5} We find counsel has complied with Anders. Appellant has not filed a pro se
brief, and the State has not filed a response brief. Counsel sets forth one assignment of
error which could arguably support the appeal:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING MCQUEEN’S GUILTY
PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL RULE 11 AND ERRED IN SENTENCING
MCQUEEN.
{¶6} Counsel concedes the trial court engaged in a complete plea colloquy as
required by Crim. R. 11. Further, prior to accepting Appellant’s plea, the trial court
informed Appellant it was not bound to follow the joint sentencing recommendation of the
parties. Appellant indicated he understood the trial court was not bound by the sentencing
recommendation. Appellant further represented with knowledge of this, he was still willing
to go forward with his guilty plea. Tr. 4. Upon review of the transcript of the plea hearing,
we find no error in the trial court's acceptance of Appellant's guilty plea. {¶7} We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.
2953.08. State v. Roberts, 2020-Ohio-6722, ¶13 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Marcum, 2016-
Ohio-1002. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or
vacate a sentence and remand for sentencing where we clearly and convincingly find
either the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.13(B)
or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(l), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to
law. Id., citing State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177.
{¶8} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes
and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and
recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. State v. Hodges, 2013-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.).
{¶9} “The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from
future crime by 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). To achieve these purposes, the
sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the
offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution
to the victim of the offense, the public, or both. Id. Further, the sentence imposed shall be
“commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and
its impact on the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes by
similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶10} R.C. 2929.12 lists general factors which must be considered by the trial
court in determining the sentence to be imposed for a felony, and gives detailed criteria which do not control the court's discretion, but which must be considered for or against
severity or leniency in a particular case. The trial court retains discretion to determine the
most effective way to comply with the purpose and principles of sentencing as set forth in
R.C. 2929.11. R.C. 2929.12.
{¶11} Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits this Court to independently weigh
the evidence in the record and substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court to
determine a sentence which best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.
2929.12. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42. Instead, we may only determine if the
sentence is contrary to law.
{¶12} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial
court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed
in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant
within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512, ¶¶ 14-16 (5th
Dist.).
{¶13} The trial court stated in its judgment entry it considered the principles and
purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the balance of seriousness and
recidivism factors pursuant to R.C. 2929.12.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. McQueen, 2025-Ohio-1959.]
COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Robert G. Montgomery, J. -vs-
JACOB MCQUEEN Case No. 24CA000024
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 23CR08-0204
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 30, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
CHARLES T. MCCONVILLE TODD W. BARSTOW Knox County Prosecuting Attorney 14 North Park Place 117 East High Street Newark, Ohio 43055 Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050 Hoffman, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant Jacob McQueen appeals the judgment entered by the
Knox County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his plea of guilty to felonious
assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)), and sentencing him to a term of incarceration of six to nine
years. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} In August of 2023, an officer from the Danville Police Department went to
Appellant’s residence to serve an arrest warrant. Appellant fled, running to another
residence. The officer chased Appellant, and the two engaged in a “physical tussle.” Tr.
10. The officer sustained permanent nerve damage to his right arm and hand as a result
of the tussle with Appellant.
{¶3} Appellant was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury with felonious
assault, resisting arrest, and possession of drug abuse instruments. Appellant entered a
plea of guilty to felonious assault, and was convicted upon his plea. The State dismissed
the remaining charges. The case proceeded immediately to sentencing. The parties
jointly recommended a sentence of four to six years of incarceration. The trial court
sentenced Appellant to a term of six to nine years of incarceration. It is from the October
28, 2024 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal.
{¶4} Appellate counsel for Appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), rehearing den., 388 U.S. 924,
indicating the within appeal is wholly frivolous. In Anders, the United States Supreme
Court held if, after a conscientious examination of the record, a defendant's counsel
concludes the case is wholly frivolous, then he or she should so advise the court and
request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744. Counsel must accompany the request with a brief identifying anything in the record which could arguably support the appeal. Id.
Counsel also must: (1) furnish the client with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw,
and (2) allow the client sufficient time to raise any matters the client chooses. Id. Once
the defendant's counsel satisfies these requirements, the appellate court must fully
examine the proceedings below to determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If
the appellate court also determines the appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel's
request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal without violating constitutional requirements,
or may proceed to a decision on the merits if state law so requires. Id.
{¶5} We find counsel has complied with Anders. Appellant has not filed a pro se
brief, and the State has not filed a response brief. Counsel sets forth one assignment of
error which could arguably support the appeal:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING MCQUEEN’S GUILTY
PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL RULE 11 AND ERRED IN SENTENCING
MCQUEEN.
{¶6} Counsel concedes the trial court engaged in a complete plea colloquy as
required by Crim. R. 11. Further, prior to accepting Appellant’s plea, the trial court
informed Appellant it was not bound to follow the joint sentencing recommendation of the
parties. Appellant indicated he understood the trial court was not bound by the sentencing
recommendation. Appellant further represented with knowledge of this, he was still willing
to go forward with his guilty plea. Tr. 4. Upon review of the transcript of the plea hearing,
we find no error in the trial court's acceptance of Appellant's guilty plea. {¶7} We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.
2953.08. State v. Roberts, 2020-Ohio-6722, ¶13 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Marcum, 2016-
Ohio-1002. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or
vacate a sentence and remand for sentencing where we clearly and convincingly find
either the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.13(B)
or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(l), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to
law. Id., citing State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177.
{¶8} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes
and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and
recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. State v. Hodges, 2013-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.).
{¶9} “The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from
future crime by 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). To achieve these purposes, the
sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the
offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution
to the victim of the offense, the public, or both. Id. Further, the sentence imposed shall be
“commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and
its impact on the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes by
similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B).
{¶10} R.C. 2929.12 lists general factors which must be considered by the trial
court in determining the sentence to be imposed for a felony, and gives detailed criteria which do not control the court's discretion, but which must be considered for or against
severity or leniency in a particular case. The trial court retains discretion to determine the
most effective way to comply with the purpose and principles of sentencing as set forth in
R.C. 2929.11. R.C. 2929.12.
{¶11} Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits this Court to independently weigh
the evidence in the record and substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court to
determine a sentence which best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.
2929.12. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42. Instead, we may only determine if the
sentence is contrary to law.
{¶12} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial
court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed
in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant
within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512, ¶¶ 14-16 (5th
Dist.).
{¶13} The trial court stated in its judgment entry it considered the principles and
purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the balance of seriousness and
recidivism factors pursuant to R.C. 2929.12. The sentence is within the statutory range.
Pursuant to Jones, supra, this Court is not permitted to independently weigh the evidence
in the record and substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court to determine a
sentence which best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Further,
although the trial court did not sentence Appellant in accordance with the joint
recommendation, the trial court was not bound to the impose the jointly recommended
sentence, and Appellant was informed of this fact prior to entering his plea. See, e.g., State v. Cherry, 2025-Ohio-1152, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.) We find the sentence imposed on
Appellant is not contrary to law.
{¶14} After independently reviewing the record, we agree with counsel's
conclusion no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal. Hence,
we find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders, grant counsel's request to
withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the Knox County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶15} The judgment of the Knox County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J. Baldwin, P.J. and Montgomery, J. concur