[Cite as State v. Slife, 2025-Ohio-225.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT AUGLAIZE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2-24-03 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
TRENTON ALAN SLIFE, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court Criminal Division Trial Court No. 2024 CR 17
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: January 27, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Nicholas A. Catania for Appellant
Reed D. Searcy for Appellee Case No. 2-24-03
WALDICK, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Trenton Slife (“Slife”), appeals the judgment of
sentence entered against him in the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas on
May 22, 2024. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Procedural History
{¶2} This case originated on February 5, 2024, when an Auglaize County
grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Slife. In Count 1 of the
indictment, Slife was charged with Trafficking in Drugs (Methamphetamine), a
second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(D). Count 2 of
the indictment charged the offense of Aggravated Possession of Drugs
(Methamphetamine), a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and
(C)(1)(c).
{¶3} On February 9, 2024, an arraignment was held and Slife entered an
initial plea of not guilty to the indictment.
{¶4} On March 11, 2024, a change of plea hearing was held. At that time,
Slife entered a negotiated plea of guilty to Count 2 of the indictment. In exchange
for that guilty plea, the prosecution agreed to a dismissal of Count 1 of the
indictment, agreed to dismiss a fifth-degree felony charge in another indictment
pending against Slife, and agreed to not prosecute Slife on potential criminal charges
stemming from his actions at the time he was arrested on the indictment in this case.
The trial court accepted the guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation. -2- Case No. 2-24-03
{¶5} On May 22, 2024, a sentencing hearing was held. At that time, Slife
was sentenced to a minimum prison term of eight years with a potential maximum
prison term of twelve years.
{¶6} On June 13, 2024, Slife filed the instant appeal, in which he raises one
assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The trial court committed prejudicial error when it failed to properly follow the sentencing criteria set forth in Ohio Revised Code, Section 2929.14 resulting in the defendant-appellant receiving a sentence which is contrary to law.
{¶7} In the sole assignment of error, Slife contends that the trial court erred
in imposing the maximum prison term, asserting that the same is not supported by
the record.
{¶8} The standard of review in this sentencing appeal is whether the sentence
is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶
10; R.C. 2953.08. The Supreme Court of Ohio has further limited sentencing review
by holding 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. A trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the
statutory range. State v. Johnson, 2021-Ohio-1768, ¶ 9 (3d Dist). “A sentence
imposed within the statutory range is not contrary to law as long as the trial court
-3- Case No. 2-24-03
considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing contained in R.C.
2929.11 and the sentencing factors contained in R.C. 2929.12.” Id., citing State v.
Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.).
{¶9} With regard to the sentence imposed in the instant case, Slife was
convicted of Aggravated Possession of Drugs, a felony of the second degree in
violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(c). Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(A)(2)(a), the
authorized range of prison sentences for a second-degree felony committed after
March 22, 2019, as Slife’s offense was, is an indefinite prison term with a stated
minimum term of two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight years, and a maximum
term that is determined pursuant to R.C. 2929.144. Additionally, pursuant to R.C.
2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(c), the statutory subsections under which Slife was charged
and convicted, it is mandatory that a prison term be imposed for violations of those
provisions. Thus, the imposition of a prison term was required by law in this case,
and the indefinite prison term of eight years up to a potential maximum of twelve
years imposed by the trial court was within the statutory range.
{¶10} On the record at the time of sentencing, the trial court specifically
noted that it had considered “the purposes and principles of felony sentencing under
Section 2929.11, and the seriousness and recidivism factors, based upon the
information provided to the Court by the parties and the PSI.” (5/22/24 Tr., 8). The
judgment entry of sentencing also reflects that the trial court considered “the record,
pre-sentence investigation, testimony, oral statements, the principles and purposes
-4- Case No. 2-24-03
of sentencing required by R.C. §2929.11, and the serious and recidivism factors of
R.C. 2929.12[.]” (Docket No. 35).
{¶11} At the change of plea hearing held on March 11, 2024, Slife agreed
that the offense to which he pled guilty was based on the following facts: On
January 7, 2024, at approximately 12:30 pm., a St. Marys Police Department officer
observed Slife walking on High Street in St. Marys. The officer was aware that
Slife had a warrant for his arrest, stemming from a prior indictment. After
confirming that the warrant was still active, the officer arrested Slife. A search
incident to arrest revealed a bag of suspected methamphetamine in Slife’s rear
pocket. Subsequent analysis at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation lab
determined that the substance contained methamphetamine and weighed
approximately 21.72 grams. Following his arrest, Slife was interviewed by a
detective, and Slife admitted to knowing that he had been in possession of twenty-
two grams of methamphetamine.
{¶12} Additionally, the presentence investigation reflects that Slife told the
detective in his post-arrest interview that the methamphetamine was not his but,
rather, he is a runner for a local drug dealer, who is one of the biggest suppliers of
drugs in St. Marys.
{¶13} Finally, at the sentencing hearing, in addition to taking the above facts
into consideration, the trial court noted that Slife’s ORAS score was 35, indicating
a very high risk of reoffending; that he had prior criminal convictions involving
-5- Case No. 2-24-03
possession of drugs, including a large quantity of methamphetamine in 2019; that
he had a drug trafficking conviction in 2016; and that he had been given prior
opportunities for community control sanctions that offered counseling and help with
his addiction. The presentence investigation confirms those prior convictions, in
addition to several others, as well as reflecting a history of prior prison terms having
been imposed.
{¶14} In summary, the record before us confirms that the trial court
considered the overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11
and the statutory factors relating to seriousness and recidivism set forth in R.C.
2929.12.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Slife, 2025-Ohio-225.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT AUGLAIZE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2-24-03 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
TRENTON ALAN SLIFE, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court Criminal Division Trial Court No. 2024 CR 17
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: January 27, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Nicholas A. Catania for Appellant
Reed D. Searcy for Appellee Case No. 2-24-03
WALDICK, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Trenton Slife (“Slife”), appeals the judgment of
sentence entered against him in the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas on
May 22, 2024. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Procedural History
{¶2} This case originated on February 5, 2024, when an Auglaize County
grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Slife. In Count 1 of the
indictment, Slife was charged with Trafficking in Drugs (Methamphetamine), a
second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(D). Count 2 of
the indictment charged the offense of Aggravated Possession of Drugs
(Methamphetamine), a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and
(C)(1)(c).
{¶3} On February 9, 2024, an arraignment was held and Slife entered an
initial plea of not guilty to the indictment.
{¶4} On March 11, 2024, a change of plea hearing was held. At that time,
Slife entered a negotiated plea of guilty to Count 2 of the indictment. In exchange
for that guilty plea, the prosecution agreed to a dismissal of Count 1 of the
indictment, agreed to dismiss a fifth-degree felony charge in another indictment
pending against Slife, and agreed to not prosecute Slife on potential criminal charges
stemming from his actions at the time he was arrested on the indictment in this case.
The trial court accepted the guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation. -2- Case No. 2-24-03
{¶5} On May 22, 2024, a sentencing hearing was held. At that time, Slife
was sentenced to a minimum prison term of eight years with a potential maximum
prison term of twelve years.
{¶6} On June 13, 2024, Slife filed the instant appeal, in which he raises one
assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The trial court committed prejudicial error when it failed to properly follow the sentencing criteria set forth in Ohio Revised Code, Section 2929.14 resulting in the defendant-appellant receiving a sentence which is contrary to law.
{¶7} In the sole assignment of error, Slife contends that the trial court erred
in imposing the maximum prison term, asserting that the same is not supported by
the record.
{¶8} The standard of review in this sentencing appeal is whether the sentence
is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶
10; R.C. 2953.08. The Supreme Court of Ohio has further limited sentencing review
by holding 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. A trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the
statutory range. State v. Johnson, 2021-Ohio-1768, ¶ 9 (3d Dist). “A sentence
imposed within the statutory range is not contrary to law as long as the trial court
-3- Case No. 2-24-03
considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing contained in R.C.
2929.11 and the sentencing factors contained in R.C. 2929.12.” Id., citing State v.
Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.).
{¶9} With regard to the sentence imposed in the instant case, Slife was
convicted of Aggravated Possession of Drugs, a felony of the second degree in
violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(c). Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(A)(2)(a), the
authorized range of prison sentences for a second-degree felony committed after
March 22, 2019, as Slife’s offense was, is an indefinite prison term with a stated
minimum term of two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight years, and a maximum
term that is determined pursuant to R.C. 2929.144. Additionally, pursuant to R.C.
2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(c), the statutory subsections under which Slife was charged
and convicted, it is mandatory that a prison term be imposed for violations of those
provisions. Thus, the imposition of a prison term was required by law in this case,
and the indefinite prison term of eight years up to a potential maximum of twelve
years imposed by the trial court was within the statutory range.
{¶10} On the record at the time of sentencing, the trial court specifically
noted that it had considered “the purposes and principles of felony sentencing under
Section 2929.11, and the seriousness and recidivism factors, based upon the
information provided to the Court by the parties and the PSI.” (5/22/24 Tr., 8). The
judgment entry of sentencing also reflects that the trial court considered “the record,
pre-sentence investigation, testimony, oral statements, the principles and purposes
-4- Case No. 2-24-03
of sentencing required by R.C. §2929.11, and the serious and recidivism factors of
R.C. 2929.12[.]” (Docket No. 35).
{¶11} At the change of plea hearing held on March 11, 2024, Slife agreed
that the offense to which he pled guilty was based on the following facts: On
January 7, 2024, at approximately 12:30 pm., a St. Marys Police Department officer
observed Slife walking on High Street in St. Marys. The officer was aware that
Slife had a warrant for his arrest, stemming from a prior indictment. After
confirming that the warrant was still active, the officer arrested Slife. A search
incident to arrest revealed a bag of suspected methamphetamine in Slife’s rear
pocket. Subsequent analysis at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation lab
determined that the substance contained methamphetamine and weighed
approximately 21.72 grams. Following his arrest, Slife was interviewed by a
detective, and Slife admitted to knowing that he had been in possession of twenty-
two grams of methamphetamine.
{¶12} Additionally, the presentence investigation reflects that Slife told the
detective in his post-arrest interview that the methamphetamine was not his but,
rather, he is a runner for a local drug dealer, who is one of the biggest suppliers of
drugs in St. Marys.
{¶13} Finally, at the sentencing hearing, in addition to taking the above facts
into consideration, the trial court noted that Slife’s ORAS score was 35, indicating
a very high risk of reoffending; that he had prior criminal convictions involving
-5- Case No. 2-24-03
possession of drugs, including a large quantity of methamphetamine in 2019; that
he had a drug trafficking conviction in 2016; and that he had been given prior
opportunities for community control sanctions that offered counseling and help with
his addiction. The presentence investigation confirms those prior convictions, in
addition to several others, as well as reflecting a history of prior prison terms having
been imposed.
{¶14} In summary, the record before us confirms that the trial court
considered the overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11
and the statutory factors relating to seriousness and recidivism set forth in R.C.
2929.12. Consideration of those factors supports the conclusion that Slife poses a
high risk of reoffending. Slife’s prior record of criminal conduct also establishes he
poses a threat to society, and his criminal history reflects that prior attempts at
rehabilitation and punishment through the imposition of community control terms
as well as prison terms have been unsuccessful. As the trial court gave consideration
to the applicable sentencing factors and because the maximum sentence imposed is
within the statutory range of sentencing options, the maximum sentence in this case
is supported by the record and is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.
{¶15} Slife also asserts on appeal that a trial court may only impose a
maximum prison term if the court finds that the offender is one who poses the
greatest likelihood of committing future crimes, after also finding that the minimum
sentence would demean the seriousness of the offender’s conduct or would not
-6- Case No. 2-24-03
adequately protect the public. However, Slife’s argument is misplaced as
requirements for such judicial fact-finding before imposing non-minimum and/or
maximum sentences are no longer part of the Ohio statutory sentencing scheme. See
State v. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856.
{¶16} The assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶17} Having found no error prejudicial to the defendant-appellant, Trenton
Slife, in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Auglaize County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
ZIMMERMAN and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
-7-