[Cite as State v. Welk, 2026-Ohio-231.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-L-089
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas
DENNIS V. WELK, JR., Trial Court No. 2025 CR 000206 Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: January 27, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Adam Parker, Goldberg Dowell & Associates, L.L.C., 323 West Lakeside Avenue, Suite 450, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).
SCOTT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Dennis V. Welk, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the
Lake County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to consecutive prison terms of 60
months for two counts of Sexual Battery. For the following reasons, we affirm the
judgment of the lower court.
{¶2} On March 31, 2025, the Lake County Grand Jury indicted Welk for Sexual
Imposition, a misdemeanor of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A);
Importuning, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.07(B)(1); two counts of
Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, felonies of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A); two counts of Sexual Battery, felonies of the third degree, in violation of R.C.
2907.03(A)(5); and Rape, a felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2).
{¶3} The court held a change of plea hearing on May 14, 2025. Welk entered
guilty pleas to two counts of Sexual Battery as charged in the indictment. The charges
related to the sexual assault of his 13-year-old stepdaughter.
{¶4} At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel indicated that Welk was
intoxicated when he committed the offenses and he had expressed remorse for hurting
the victim and his family. Welk stated that alcohol was “a main factor” but that he took
full responsibility for his actions and would take advantage of programs offered while
incarcerated. The prosecutor indicated that other children were present when the
offenses were committed. She further observed that Welk continued to communicate
with the victim while in jail, pressuring her to request that he should receive a short
sentence, causing her “ongoing emotional harm.” The State recommended a jointly
agreed sentence of eight years in prison.
{¶5} The court stated: “[C]ontacting [the victim] . . . is totally inappropriate and
was further evidence of you trying to take advantage of her at that young age like you
did.” It also noted that the presentence investigation report indicated that Welk expressed
a belief that he did not commit all of the acts for which he was charged. The court
reviewed Welk’s criminal record, which included felony offenses for burglary, multiple
prison terms, and theft offenses, finding he had “a lifetime of criminal activity.” The court
sentenced Welk to serve consecutive 60-month prison terms for each offense.
{¶6} Welk timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:
{¶7} “The record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s
decision to impose maximum consecutive sentences.” PAGE 2 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-089 Review of Felony Sentences
{¶8} Welk raises issues relating to the court’s imposition of 60-month sentences
for each count of Sexual Battery. “The court hearing an appeal [of a felony sentence]
shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence . . . given by the
sentencing court.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “The appellate court may increase, reduce, or
otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the
sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing . . . if it clearly
and convincingly finds . . . [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s
findings under division . . . (C)(4) of section 2929.14 . . . [or] [t]hat the sentence is
otherwise contrary to law.” Id.; State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1.
{¶9} As an initial matter, although the assigned error contends that the record
does not support the imposition of “maximum consecutive sentences,” Welk presents no
argument relating specifically to the consecutive nature of the sentences. R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) requires that the trial court, in issuing consecutive sentences, make
specific findings relating to the danger posed to the public, the seriousness of the
offenses, and protection of the public from the commission of future crime. The court
stated each of the required findings on the record and incorporated them into its
sentencing entry, so we find no error in this regard. State v. Elliott, 2023-Ohio-412, ¶ 9
(11th Dist.) (“the court ‘is required to make [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)] finding[s] . . . at the
sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry’”) (citation
omitted).
Consideration of R.C. 2929.12 Sentencing Factors
{¶10} Welk contends that “the trial court failed to consider all the relevant
sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12,” emphasizing its focus on his comments that he PAGE 3 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-089 did not remember the conduct underlying the offenses rather than his statements of
remorse. He contends that his genuine expression of remorse “should have carried at
least some mitigating weight, and favored a less-than maximum sentence.”
{¶11} R.C. 2929.12(A) provides the sentencing court with discretion to “determine
the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing.” In
exercising its discretion, the court shall consider R.C. 2929.12 factors “relating to the
seriousness of the conduct [and] . . . the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism.” Id. The
trial court “fulfills its duties under . . . R.C. 2929.12 by stating that it considered” it and is
“not required to give any particular weight or emphasis to a given set of circumstances.”
State v. Miller, 2025-Ohio-339, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.); State v. DelManzo, 2008-Ohio-5856, ¶
23 (11th Dist.). Further, “[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, a reviewing court will presume
the trial court considered all appropriate sentencing factors.” State v. Dawson, 2016-
Ohio-2800, ¶ 15 (11th Dist.).
{¶12} The court stated at the sentencing hearing it considered “all the provisions
in . . . R.C. 2929.12” and in its sentencing entry that it “has balanced the seriousness and
recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.” “[W]e will not presume the trial court failed to
weigh certain factors merely because the trial court did not explicitly discuss each discrete
factor.” State v. Davy, 2024-Ohio-5550, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.). The court expressed concern
over Welk’s criminal record, statements questioning whether he committed the criminal
conduct contained in the PSI, and his communication with the victim while in jail.
Regardless of Welk’s expression of remorse, it was entitled to determine these recidivism
factors warranted its sentence.
{¶13} We emphasize that this court cannot review the trial court’s weighing of
these factors on appeal. Pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Jones, PAGE 4 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-089 2020-Ohio-6729, “[n]othing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to
independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Welk, 2026-Ohio-231.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-L-089
Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas
DENNIS V. WELK, JR., Trial Court No. 2025 CR 000206 Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: January 27, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Adam Parker, Goldberg Dowell & Associates, L.L.C., 323 West Lakeside Avenue, Suite 450, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).
SCOTT LYNCH, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Dennis V. Welk, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the
Lake County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to consecutive prison terms of 60
months for two counts of Sexual Battery. For the following reasons, we affirm the
judgment of the lower court.
{¶2} On March 31, 2025, the Lake County Grand Jury indicted Welk for Sexual
Imposition, a misdemeanor of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.06(A);
Importuning, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.07(B)(1); two counts of
Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, felonies of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A); two counts of Sexual Battery, felonies of the third degree, in violation of R.C.
2907.03(A)(5); and Rape, a felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2).
{¶3} The court held a change of plea hearing on May 14, 2025. Welk entered
guilty pleas to two counts of Sexual Battery as charged in the indictment. The charges
related to the sexual assault of his 13-year-old stepdaughter.
{¶4} At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel indicated that Welk was
intoxicated when he committed the offenses and he had expressed remorse for hurting
the victim and his family. Welk stated that alcohol was “a main factor” but that he took
full responsibility for his actions and would take advantage of programs offered while
incarcerated. The prosecutor indicated that other children were present when the
offenses were committed. She further observed that Welk continued to communicate
with the victim while in jail, pressuring her to request that he should receive a short
sentence, causing her “ongoing emotional harm.” The State recommended a jointly
agreed sentence of eight years in prison.
{¶5} The court stated: “[C]ontacting [the victim] . . . is totally inappropriate and
was further evidence of you trying to take advantage of her at that young age like you
did.” It also noted that the presentence investigation report indicated that Welk expressed
a belief that he did not commit all of the acts for which he was charged. The court
reviewed Welk’s criminal record, which included felony offenses for burglary, multiple
prison terms, and theft offenses, finding he had “a lifetime of criminal activity.” The court
sentenced Welk to serve consecutive 60-month prison terms for each offense.
{¶6} Welk timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:
{¶7} “The record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s
decision to impose maximum consecutive sentences.” PAGE 2 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-089 Review of Felony Sentences
{¶8} Welk raises issues relating to the court’s imposition of 60-month sentences
for each count of Sexual Battery. “The court hearing an appeal [of a felony sentence]
shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence . . . given by the
sentencing court.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). “The appellate court may increase, reduce, or
otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the
sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing . . . if it clearly
and convincingly finds . . . [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s
findings under division . . . (C)(4) of section 2929.14 . . . [or] [t]hat the sentence is
otherwise contrary to law.” Id.; State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1.
{¶9} As an initial matter, although the assigned error contends that the record
does not support the imposition of “maximum consecutive sentences,” Welk presents no
argument relating specifically to the consecutive nature of the sentences. R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) requires that the trial court, in issuing consecutive sentences, make
specific findings relating to the danger posed to the public, the seriousness of the
offenses, and protection of the public from the commission of future crime. The court
stated each of the required findings on the record and incorporated them into its
sentencing entry, so we find no error in this regard. State v. Elliott, 2023-Ohio-412, ¶ 9
(11th Dist.) (“the court ‘is required to make [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)] finding[s] . . . at the
sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry’”) (citation
omitted).
Consideration of R.C. 2929.12 Sentencing Factors
{¶10} Welk contends that “the trial court failed to consider all the relevant
sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12,” emphasizing its focus on his comments that he PAGE 3 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-089 did not remember the conduct underlying the offenses rather than his statements of
remorse. He contends that his genuine expression of remorse “should have carried at
least some mitigating weight, and favored a less-than maximum sentence.”
{¶11} R.C. 2929.12(A) provides the sentencing court with discretion to “determine
the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing.” In
exercising its discretion, the court shall consider R.C. 2929.12 factors “relating to the
seriousness of the conduct [and] . . . the likelihood of the offender’s recidivism.” Id. The
trial court “fulfills its duties under . . . R.C. 2929.12 by stating that it considered” it and is
“not required to give any particular weight or emphasis to a given set of circumstances.”
State v. Miller, 2025-Ohio-339, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.); State v. DelManzo, 2008-Ohio-5856, ¶
23 (11th Dist.). Further, “[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, a reviewing court will presume
the trial court considered all appropriate sentencing factors.” State v. Dawson, 2016-
Ohio-2800, ¶ 15 (11th Dist.).
{¶12} The court stated at the sentencing hearing it considered “all the provisions
in . . . R.C. 2929.12” and in its sentencing entry that it “has balanced the seriousness and
recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12.” “[W]e will not presume the trial court failed to
weigh certain factors merely because the trial court did not explicitly discuss each discrete
factor.” State v. Davy, 2024-Ohio-5550, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.). The court expressed concern
over Welk’s criminal record, statements questioning whether he committed the criminal
conduct contained in the PSI, and his communication with the victim while in jail.
Regardless of Welk’s expression of remorse, it was entitled to determine these recidivism
factors warranted its sentence.
{¶13} We emphasize that this court cannot review the trial court’s weighing of
these factors on appeal. Pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Jones, PAGE 4 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-089 2020-Ohio-6729, “[n]othing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to
independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the
trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with” R.C. 2929.12. Id.
at ¶ 42; State v. Freshwater, 2023-Ohio-1248, ¶ 10 (11th Dist.) (“we are precluded from
reviewing whether [the] sentence is supported by the record under R.C. 2929.12”). The
weight to be given to Welk’s expression of remorse in light of the other facts in the record
was for the trial court to decide. We find no error in the application of R.C. 2929.12.
{¶14} Finally, to the extent that Welk takes issue with the fact that he received
maximum sentences, provided that the trial court considers the appropriate factors, it has
“full discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory range.” State v. Foti, 2020-Ohio-
439, ¶ 73 (11th Dist.). Welk’s sentences were within the range for third-degree felonies
in violation of R.C. 2907.03, which carry a sentence of up to 60 months. R.C.
2929.14(A)(3)(a).
{¶15} The sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶16} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lake County Court of
Common Pleas, sentencing Welk to a total prison term of ten years, is affirmed. Costs to
be taxed against appellant.
MATT LYNCH, P.J.,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
concur.
PAGE 5 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-089 JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the Opinion of this court, the assignment of error is
without merit. The order of this court is that the judgment of the Lake County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against appellant.
JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH
PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH, concurs
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 6 OF 6
Case No. 2025-L-089