Full Opinion

[Cite as State v. Malloy, 2026-Ohio-3393.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2026-A-0006 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas TIMOTHY C. MALLOY, Trial Court No. 2025 CR 00017 Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: August 31, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed April R. Grabman, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Dane R. Hixon, Assistant Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Margaret Brunarski, Ashtabula County Public Defender; Tia N. Jackson and Phillip L. Heasley, Assistant Public Defenders, Ashtabula County Public Defender’s Office, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Defendant-Appellant). MATT LYNCH, P.J. {¶1} Appellant, Timothy C. Malloy, appeals the December 15, 2025 entry of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to serve 10 months in prison following his negotiated plea of guilty to one count of Receiving Stolen Property. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. {¶2} Malloy was initially indicted on two counts of Receiving Stolen Property, in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A) and (C), pertaining to a motor vehicle (Count One) and a debit card (Count Two). On November 20, 2025, pursuant to a plea agreement, Malloy pleaded guilty to Count Two, a fifth-degree felony, and the State dismissed Count One, a fourth-degree felony. The written plea agreement, signed by Malloy, states, “I understand that any recommendation of sentence to the Court by the State is not binding in any way on the Court and that any sentence to be imposed is in the sole discretion of the Court.” At the plea hearing, the prosecutor told the court that the State had agreed to make a community control recommendation at sentencing. The court later asked Malloy, “Do you understand that the Court is not bound to any agreed sentence between you and the State of Ohio?” Malloy responded, “Yes, ma’am.” {¶3} On December 15, 2025, following a presentence investigation, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Defense counsel asked the court to follow through with the parties’ joint recommendation for community control, and the prosecutor maintained that the State would abide by the terms of the agreement. The court reviewed the presentence report, outlining Malloy’s lengthy history of prior convictions and probation violations. The court stated it had considered the purposes and principles of the sentencing statutes, including the overriding purposes of punishing the offender and protecting the public from future crime. As it relates to the recidivism and seriousness factors, the court found that Malloy has a substantial prior criminal record, a history of criminal convictions and probation violations, has not been law abiding for several years, and committed the instant offense while on post-release control or parole in a prior case. For these reasons, despite the low-level felony in this case, the court stated it could not follow the joint recommendation for community control. The court found community control “would demean the seriousness of the conduct in this case and its impact upon the victim and would not adequately protect the public. Therefore, a sentence of imprisonment is commensurate with the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and a prison sentence PAGE 2 OF 7 Case No. 2026-A-0006 does not place an unnecessary burden on the State and promotes rehabilitation.” The court then sentenced Malloy to a nonmandatory prison term of 10 months, with credit for time served. {¶4} The sentencing entry was journalized on December 15, 2025. The court stated therein that it had considered the record, information presented by or on behalf of Malloy and the prosecuting attorney, any victim information provided by the State, and Malloy’s ability to pay financial sanctions, as well as the purposes and principles of sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism sentencing factors. This appeal followed. {¶5} Malloy raises one assignment of error for our review: {¶6} “The trial court erred by exceeding its discretion in sentencing defendant.” {¶7} Our standard of review for felony sentencing is found in 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. The appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. {¶8} Our jurisdiction to review the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 is limited under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). State v. Brunson, 2022-Ohio-4299, ¶ 69. “Under that provision, the appellate court cannot 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., citing State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. “Nothing in R.C. PAGE 3 OF 7 Case No. 2026-A-0006 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.” Jones at ¶ 42. {¶9} “When sentencing, a ‘trial court is not required to give any particular weight or emphasis to a given set of circumstances; it is merely required to consider the statutory factors in exercising its discretion.’ State v. Delmanzo, 2008-Ohio-5856, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.). A sentencing court fulfills its duty when it states that it has considered the factors under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. State v. DeLuca, 2021-Ohio-1007, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.).” State v. Hackathorn, 2023-Ohio-410, ¶ 8 (11th Dist.). {¶10} In support of his assignment of error, Malloy contends that the trial court disregarded the clear agreement between the parties for a sentence of community control and disregarded the clear mandates of R.C. 2929.11 when it imposed a 10-month prison sentence. Malloy argues that the court merely recited statutory language and never indicated specifically why the public needed protection from him or why the goal of effective rehabilitation could not have been achieved through the less-restrictive sanction of community control. {¶11} However, we are without any authority to independently weigh mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.12, Jones at ¶ 42, and the trial court fulfilled its duty in this regard by stating at the sentencing hearing and in its sentencing entry that it had considered all factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. See Hackathorn at ¶ 14. Accord State v. Pace, 2025-Ohio-5291, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.). The court specifically noted Malloy’s lengthy criminal history and probation violations, as well as the fact that he committed the present offense PAGE 4 OF 7 Case No. 2026-A-0006 while on post-release control in a prior case. On balance, the court found that Malloy was not amenable to a community control sanction in this case. {¶12} Moreover, it is well established that “trial courts may reject plea agreements and that they are not bound by a jointly recommended sentence.” State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 28. “‘A trial court does not err by imposing a sentence greater than “that forming the inducement for the defendant to plead guilty when the trial court forewarns the defendant of the applicable penalties, including the possibility of imposing a greater sentence than that recommended by the prosecutor.”’” State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 2005-Ohio-3674, ¶ 6, quoting State v. Buchanan, 2003-Ohio-4772, ¶ 13 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Pettiford, 2002 WL 652371, *3 (12th Dist. Apr. 22, 2002). Accord State v. Butler, 2026-Ohio-318, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.). {¶13} Malloy signed a Written Plea of Guilty that expressly states, “I understand that any recommendation of sentence to the Court by the State is not binding in any way on the Court and that any sentence to be imposed is in the sole discretion of the Court.” At the plea hearing, the trial court asked Malloy, “Do you understand that the Court is not bound to any agreed sentence between you and the State of Ohio?” Malloy answered, “Yes, ma’am.” Thus, nothing in this record supports the conclusion that Malloy was not sufficiently made aware that the parties’ joint sentencing recommendation was not binding upon the court. {¶14} The trial court was under no obligation to follow the joint sentencing recommendation, and we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial court in its application of the sentencing factors. Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is without merit. PAGE 5 OF 7 Case No. 2026-A-0006 {¶15} The judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. JOHN J. EKLUND, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., concur. PAGE 6 OF 7 Case No. 2026-A-0006 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 Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant. PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON, 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 7 OF 7 Case No. 2026-A-0006