State v. Waltz

2025 Ohio 790

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 10, 2025
• Docket: 14-24-32
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Waltz, 2025-Ohio-790.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 14-24-32 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

ANDREW JAMES WALTZ, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 24-CR-0003

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: March 10, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Alison Boggs for Appellant

Andrew M. Bigler for Appellee Case No. 14-24-32

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Andrew James Waltz (“Waltz”) appeals the

judgment of the Union County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the trial court

imposed a sentence that was contrary to law. For the reasons set forth below, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On December 29, 2023, law enforcement received a report that Waltz

had left a trailer in the driveway of an area residence. The trailer was found to have

been stolen from a Rural King in Norwalk, Ohio. The trailer also contained twenty-

seven stable mats that had been stolen from Rural King. The police also discovered

that the license plate on the trailer had been stolen from the Tractor Supply

Company.

{¶3} On January 9, 2024, Waltz was indicted on two counts of receiving

stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), fifth-degree felonies, and one count

of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), a fourth-degree felony.

The first charge in the indictment arose from the twenty-seven rubber stable mats

that had been stolen from Rural King.

{¶4} On March 27, 2024, Waltz pled guilty to two counts of receiving stolen

property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), fifth-degree felonies. The remaining

charge was dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement. On May 15, 2024, Waltz

-2- Case No. 14-24-32

appeared for sentencing. The trial court imposed prison terms of ten months for

each of Waltz’s convictions to be served consecutively. The trial court also ordered

Waltz to make restitution to Rural King in the amount of $710.04. On May 15,

2024, the trial court issued its judgment entry of sentencing.

Assignment of Error

{¶5} Waltz filed his notice of appeal on July 29, 2024. On appeal, he raises

the following assignment of error:

The trial court erred when it sentenced appellant to ten months on Count I, receiving stolen property.

Standard of Review

{¶6} “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes the scope of appellate review for

felony sentences.” State v. Morgan, 2024-Ohio-625, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). “Under this

provision, an appellate court has the authority to increase, reduce, modify, or vacate

a sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law.”

State v. Manns, 2024-Ohio-4632, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). “Clear and convincing evidence is

that measure or degree of proof * * * which will produce in the mind of the trier of

facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v.

Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. Further, the Ohio

Supreme Court has held that “contrary to law” means “in violation of statute or legal

regulations at a given time.” State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 22, quoting Black’s

Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990).

-3- Case No. 14-24-32

Legal Standard

{¶7} “The plea of guilty is a complete admission of the defendant’s guilt.”

Crim.R. 11(B)(1). “By entering a guilty plea, one waives the requirement that the

State prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Stroub, 2011-Ohio-169, ¶ 6

(3d Dist.), quoting Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). Accordingly, a “guilty plea ‘waives [a

defendant’s] right to present manifest-weight-of-the-evidence or sufficiency-of-the-

evidence attacks against his convictions.’” (Brackets sic.) State v. Grate, 2020-

Ohio-5584, ¶ 111, quoting State v. Dalton, 2012-Ohio-3386, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.).

Legal Analysis

{¶8} On appeal, Waltz points out that an offender must “receive, retain, or

dispose of property” that has a value of $1,000.00 or more but less than $7,500.00

in order for the offense of receiving stolen property to constitute a fifth-degree

felony. R.C. 2913.51(A), (C). If the value is less than $1,000.00, this offense

generally constitutes a first-degree misdemeanor. Id. In this case, Rural King, as

the victim of the first count of receiving stolen property, submitted a request for

restitution in the amount of $710.04.

{¶9} Since the amount of requested restitution was less than $1,000.00,

Waltz argues that the evidence presented by the State at the sentencing hearing fails

to establish that he committed the identified offense as a fifth-degree felony. For

this reason, he contends that his prison term for the first count in the indictment is

-4- Case No. 14-24-32

outside of the statutorily authorized range because he should have been sentenced

for a first-degree misdemeanor instead of a fifth-degree felony.

{¶10} However, by entering pleas of guilty, Waltz waived his right to require

the State to produce evidence that proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State

v. Stroub, 2011-Ohio-169, ¶ 6. As a result, he has also waived his right to raise a

sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge on appeal. Grate, 2020-Ohio-5584, ¶ 111.

See State v. Gray, 2015-Ohio-3174, ¶ 8-9 (12th Dist.) (applying the sufficiency-of-

the-evidence standard to an argument that alleged the State had failed to establish

the value of the property). See also State v. Sines-Riley, 2024-Ohio-2860, ¶ 19 (4th

Dist.); State v. Darazim, 2014-Ohio-5304, ¶ 28-29 (10th Dist.).

{¶11} Further, we also note that the trial court ordered a presentence

investigation report be prepared for Waltz. This report indicated that the twenty-

seven stolen mats had a value of $1,080.00. In this case, the stolen property was

recovered but had sustained damage. Thus, the $710.04 of restitution that was

requested did not represent the value of the stolen property but instead represented

the economic loss incurred from the costs of recovering and repairing the property

stolen from Rural King.

{¶12} In conclusion, Waltz has failed to establish that the trial court erred in

imposing a sentence from the range of penalties that are statutorily authorized for

fifth-degree felonies. The record establishes that Waltz pled guilty to a fifth-degree

felony and received a penalty for a fifth-degree felony. State v. Saunders, 2023-

-5- Case No. 14-24-32

Ohio-4610, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.) (“A trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence

within the statutory range.”). Since Waltz has failed to establish that his sentence is

clearly and convincingly contrary to law, his sole assignment of error is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶13} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Union County Court of Common Pleas is

affirmed.

ZIMMERMAN and MILLER, J.J., concur.

/hls

-6-