State v. Wagner
This text of 2026 Ohio 289 (State v. Wagner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Wagner, 2026-Ohio-289.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2025-CA-33 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2024CR0533 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas LAMONTE D. WAGNER : Court) : Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & : OPINION
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on January 30, 2026, the judgment of
the trial court is 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,
MARY K. HUFFMAN, JUDGE
EPLEY, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur. OPINION GREENE C.A. No. 2025-CA-33
JACKSON DICICCO, Attorney for Appellant MEGAN A. HAMMOND, Attorney for Appellee
HUFFMAN, J.
{¶ 1} LaMonte D. Wagner appeals from a judgment entry of conviction, following a
guilty plea, of one count of theft. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On September 12, 2024, Wagner was indicted on one count each of breaking
and entering and theft. Later, on April 16, 2025, Wagner pleaded guilty to theft, and the
remaining count was dismissed. On July 8, 2025, when the matter was scheduled for
disposition and a restitution hearing, Wagner failed to appear, and a warrant for his arrest
was issued. Wagner’s counsel moved to recall the warrant, set aside bond forfeiture, and
set the matter for disposition, but the trial court overruled the motion. Wagner was arrested
on July 13, 2025, after which he moved for bond modification, which was also denied.
Sentencing occurred on July 23, 2025, and the court imposed community control sanctions
including basic supervision for five years and a six-month jail term. The court also ordered
Wagner to pay restitution, in an amount to which Wagner stipulated, and costs.
Assignment of Error and Analysis
{¶ 3} Wagner asserts one assignment of error. He claims that the “trial court
imposed a sentence contrary to law by not giving sufficient weight to factors that made [his]
conduct less serious than conduct normally constituting the offense,” and that his sentence
“went beyond the ‘minimum sanctions’ to protect the public from future crime, punish, and
2 promote” his rehabilitation. He directs our attention to R.C. 2929.11(A), and he “requests a
reversal of his sentence and a re-sentencing.”
{¶ 4} “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.), citing State v. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856, paragraph seven of the syllabus. However,
a trial court must consider the statutory criteria that apply to every felony offense, including
those set out in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. State v. Leopard, 2011-Ohio-3864, ¶ 11
(2d Dist.), citing State v. Mathis, 2006-Ohio-855, ¶ 38.
{¶ 5} The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are set forth in R.C. 2929.11,
which states, in relevant part:
(A) A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided by the
overriding purposes of felony sentencing. 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. To achieve those 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.
{¶ 6} When reviewing felony sentences, we must apply the standard of review set
forth in R.C. 2953.08(G). State v. Worthen, 2021-Ohio-2788, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.). Under this
statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or vacate it
3 altogether and remand for resentencing, if it “‘clearly and convincingly’ finds either (1) the
record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the sentence imposed is
contrary to law.” Id. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio observed 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.’” Id. at ¶ 14, quoting State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. Thus,
when we review a felony sentence imposed after considering the factors in R.C. 2929.11
and 2929.12, we do not examine whether the sentence is unsupported by the record; rather,
we simply determine whether the sentence is contrary to law. Id., quoting State v. McDaniel,
2021-Ohio-1519, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), and State v. Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.). A
sentence is contrary to law when it falls outside the statutory range for the offense or if the
sentencing court does not consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Dorsey at ¶ 18, quoting State
v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-8416, ¶ 74 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 7} Wagner’s judgment entry of conviction states:
The Court has considered the purposes of felony sentencing under
R.C. 2929.11, and has balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors
pursuant to R.C. 2929.12, and the need for deterrence, incapacitation,
rehabilitation and restitution. The Court is guided by the overriding purposes
of felony sentencing, including protection of the public from future crime by the
defendant and others, punishment of the defendant, and to promote effective
rehabilitation of the defendant, using the minimum sanctions that the court
determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary
burden on state or local government resources.
4 The judgment entry further states that Wagner’s offense is “not a mandatory term pursuant
to R.C. 2929.13(F), R.C. 2929.14 or 2925.”
{¶ 8} Generally, the prison term for a fifth-degree felony offense is within a range of
6 to 12 months, but under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a), courts are required to sentence offenders
to community control sanctions for fourth- or fifth-degree felonies that are not offenses of
violence or that are qualifying assault offenses. It appears that Wagner was eligible for
community control, so his sentence of community control sanctions is not contrary to law.
R.C. 2929.16(A)(2) expressly allows courts to impose “a term of up to six months in jail” as
a community residential sanction when sentencing felony offenders to community control. In
other words, the court did what was required and was free to impose a jail term as part of
Wagner’s community control sanctions. Because R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 do not require
the trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record, and because the trial court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2026 Ohio 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wagner-ohioctapp-2026.