State v. Wyman

2025 Ohio 5712

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 2025-L-053
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Wyman, 2025-Ohio-5712.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-L-053

Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas

JEFFRY WYMAN, Trial Court No. 2024 CR 001200 Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: December 22, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, Teri R. Daniel and Jennifer A. McGee, Assistant Prosecutors, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Edward M. Heindel, 2200 Terminal Tower, 50 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Jeffrey Wyman (“Wyman”), appeals the decision of the Lake

County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to an aggregate indefinite term of a

minimum of 17.5 years to a maximum of 21.5 years in prison. For the following reasons,

we affirm.

{¶2} This case arises from what the trial court described as a “domestic situation”

where Wyman fired multiple gun shots at his wife, injuring her, followed by a five-hour

standoff with the SWAT team. {¶3} Wyman was initially indicted on ten counts. Wyman pleaded guilty on March

10, 2025, to the following counts of the indictment: (“Count 4”) Felonious Assault, a felony

of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), with a Firearm Specification and

with an Instrumentalities Forfeiture Specification; (“Count 6”) Discharge of a Firearm On

Or Near Prohibited Premises, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C.

2923.162(A)(3), and (“Count 10”) Inducing Panic, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation

of R.C. 2917.31(A)(3), with a Firearm Specification. The State entered a Nolle Prosequi

on the remaining counts.

{¶4} On April 29, 2025, the trial court sentenced Wyman to: an indefinite term of

a minimum 8 years and a maximum of 12 years in prison on Count 4; a mandatory 3

years in prison on the Firearm Specification on Count 4; 24 months in prison on Count 6;

and 18 months in prison on Count 10; and a mandatory 3 years in prison on the Firearm

Specification on Count 10. The trial court ordered that Counts 4, 6, and 10 be served

consecutively to each other, and that the Firearm Specifications be served consecutively

to each other, prior to, and consecutive to, the indefinite prison term imposed on Counts

4, 6, and 10. Wyman’s aggregate sentence was for an indefinite minimum term of 17.5

years to a maximum 21.5 years in prison.

{¶5} Wyman timely filed an appeal of the trial court’s sentence with this court on

May 19, 2025.

Assignment of Error

{¶6} “[1.] The trial court’s sentence was contrary to law because it failed to

meaningfully apply the purposes and principles of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11

and R.C. 2929.12. In particular, the court gave insufficient weight to the mitigating factors

PAGE 2 OF 5

Case No. 2025-L-053 relevant to the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood of recidivism—including

Wyman’s military service, the absence of any prior criminal history, and a possible

diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. These factors supported the imposition of a

less severe sentence than the one ultimately ordered.”

Standard of Review

{¶7} Felony sentences are governed by R.C. 2953.08(G), which provides that

the appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or vacate and remand

the sentence, if it clearly and convincingly finds the sentence to be contrary to law. State

v. Blaskis, 2025-Ohio-1896, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.); State v. Lamb, 2023-Ohio-2834, ¶ 9 (11th

Dist.). A sentence is contrary to law when it is in violation of the statute. Lamb at ¶ 10,

quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b); State v. Meeks, 2023-Ohio-988, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.).

Accordingly, we review the record to determine whether Wyman’s sentence was clearly

and convincingly contrary to law.

Analysis

{¶8} Through counsel, Wyman contends that his sentence is contrary to law

because the trial court failed to give sufficient weight to factors relevant to the seriousness

of the offense and the likeliness of recidivism. Wyman essentially asks this court to

reweigh the evidence, a task which we are not permitted to do:

[T]he Ohio Supreme Court recently held that “[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. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, ___Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42. “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b) therefore 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.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 39.

PAGE 3 OF 5

Case No. 2025-L-053 State v. Stanley, 2021-Ohio-549, ¶ 10 (11th Dist.). “[T]he competing factors in R.C.

2929.11 and 2929.12 are for the sentencing court to weigh, not the court of appeals.” Id.

at ¶ 12, citing State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 12.

{¶9} The trial court indicated at sentencing that it considered the factors

enumerated in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 and indicated the same in its sentencing

entry. The trial court met the requirements under the statute to consider the factors in

R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, and Wyman puts forth no evidence to the contrary.

Further, Wyman’s sentences fall within the permitted statutory range. Accordingly,

Wyman’s sole assignment of error is without merit.

{¶10} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Lake County Court

of Common Pleas.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

PAGE 4 OF 5

Case No. 2025-L-053 JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignment of error

is without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Lake

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Costs to be taxed against appellant.

PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON

JUDGE MATT LYNCH, concurs

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI, 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 5 OF 5

Case No. 2025-L-053