State v. Rowell

2025 Ohio 4577

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: WD-25-013
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Rowell, 2025-Ohio-4577.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. {87}WD-25-013

Appellee Trial Court No. 2023CR0089

v.

Caleb Rowell DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: September 30, 2025

***** Dan M. Weiss, Esq., attorney for appellant.

Paul F. Dobson, Esq., Wood County Prosecutor, and David T. Harold, Esq., Assistant Prosecutor for appellee.

*****

ZMUDA, J.

{¶ 1} We sua sponte place this matter on the accelerated calendar pursuant to

App.R. 11.1(A), and this judgment entry is not an opinion of the court. See

S.Ct.R.Rep.Op.3.1; App.R. 11.1(E); 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 12. Having reviewed the record,

we find appellant’s single assignment of error not well-taken as a matter of law. {¶ 2} On March 17, 2025, appellant Caleb Rowell was sentenced to a one-year

prison term following his admitted violation of the terms of his previously-imposed

community control sanction. The trial court’s judgment was memorialized on March 19,

2025. Appellant timely appealed and asserts the following error for our review:

The trial court failed to comply with the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 and appellant’s sentence should be vacated.

He argues that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence that “did not advance the

principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11 and did not appropriately apply and weigh the

seriousness and recidivism factors as outlined in R.C. 2929.12.”

{¶ 3} For nearly five years, we have abided by the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding

in State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, that we are prohibited, as a matter of law, from

reviewing whether a trial court erred in its consideration of the R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.

2929.12 when it imposed sentence. State v. Bowles, 2021-Ohio-4401, ¶ 9 (6th Dist.),

citing State v. Toles, 2021-Ohio-3531 (appeals based solely on a trial court’s alleged error

in considering R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are “subject to summary resolution as a matter

of law”). Appellant’s assigned error falls squarely within this prohibition and, therefore,

we find it not well-taken. Pursuant to App.R. 12(B), we affirm the March 19, 2025

judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas.

2. {¶ 4} Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J. [[Applied Signature]] JUDGE

Christine E. Mayle, J. [[Applied Signature 2]] JUDGE

Gene A. Zmuda, J. [[Applied Signature 3]] CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

3.