State v. Lewis

[Cite as State v. Lewis, 2026-Ohio-3399.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2026-T-0006 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas RODERICK L. LEWIS, Trial Court No. 2025 CR 00090 Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: August 31, 2026 Judgment: Affirmed Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Charles L. Morrow, Assistant Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Martin Yavorcik, 940 Windham Court, Suite 7, Youngstown, OH 44512 (For Defendant- Appellant). MATT LYNCH, P.J. {¶1} Appellant, Roderick L. Lewis, appeals from the final judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. Lewis challenges the denial of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds and the imposition of consecutive sentences. We affirm. {¶2} A grand jury indicted Lewis on one count of Aggravated Possession of Drugs (methamphetamine), in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) & (C)(1)(a), and one count of Possession of Drugs (cocaine), in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) & (C)(4)(a), both fifth- degree felonies. Lewis initially pleaded not guilty but later entered a plea of no contest to the Indictment. The trial court accepted the plea and found Lewis guilty. Following a presentence investigation, the court sentenced Lewis to the maximum prison term of 12 months on each count, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate term of 24 months. {¶3} Lewis now appeals, raising three assignments of error for review. Speedy Trial {¶4} As his first assignment of error, Lewis contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss under R.C. 2941.401, thereby violating his statutory right to a speedy trial and losing jurisdiction over his case as a result. {¶5} “R.C. 2941.401 delineates how an Ohio prisoner is to enforce his constitutional right to a speedy trial on an untried indictment.” State v. Williams, 2023- Ohio-3647, ¶ 1. If a speedy trial violation under R.C. 2941.401 occurs, then a trial court has no further jurisdiction over the matter. State v. Dillon, 2007-Ohio-3617, ¶ 23. We review alleged speedy trial violations under R.C. 2941.401 de novo. See Williams at ¶ 8. {¶6} R.C. 2941.401 provides, in relevant part: When a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a correctional institution of this state, and when during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in this state any untried indictment, information, or complaint against the prisoner, the prisoner shall be brought to trial within one hundred eighty days after the prisoner causes to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney and the appropriate court in which the matter is pending, written notice of the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment and a request for a final disposition to be made of the matter, except that for good cause shown in open court, with the prisoner or the prisoner’s counsel present, the court may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance. The request of the prisoner shall be accompanied by a certificate of the warden or superintendent having custody of the prisoner, stating the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time served and remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the adult parole authority relating to the prisoner. PAGE 2 OF 10 Case No. 2026-T-0006  The written notice and request for final disposition shall be given or sent by the prisoner to the warden or superintendent having custody of the prisoner, who shall promptly forward it with the certificate to the appropriate prosecuting attorney and court by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. If the appropriate prosecuting attorney and agency having custody of the prisoner have previously agreed, then the written notice, request, and certificate may be sent by electronic mail or facsimile, in lieu of registered mail or certified mail. .... If the action is not brought to trial within the time provided, subject to continuance allowed pursuant to this section, no court any longer has jurisdiction thereof, the indictment, information, or complaint is void, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the action with prejudice. (Emphasis added.) {¶7} “In its plainest language, R.C. 2941.401 grants an incarcerated defendant a chance to have all pending charges resolved in a timely manner, thereby preventing the state from delaying prosecution until after the defendant has been released from his prison term.” State v. Hairston, 2004-Ohio-969, ¶ 25. “The statute triggers the 180-day speedy-trial clock to start running when the prisoner ‘causes to be delivered’ to the prosecuting attorney and the appropriate court a written notice of the place of his imprisonment and a request for a final disposition of the pending matter.” Williams at ¶ 1. “A prisoner satisfies the ‘causes to be delivered’ requirement in R.C. 2941.401 by providing written notice of the place of his imprisonment and a request for final disposition to the warden of the institution where he is incarcerated.” Id. at ¶ 18. The prisoner’s compliance with R.C. 2941.401 triggers the warden’s statutory duty to promptly forward the notice and request, along with the certificate of the warden or superintendent having custody of the prisoner, to the appropriate prosecuting attorney and court by registered or certified mail. Id. at ¶ 17. PAGE 3 OF 10 Case No. 2026-T-0006  {¶8} When a warden fails to act as prescribed under R.C. 2941.401, “whether intentionally, inadvertently, or otherwise, the consequences of that failure should inure to the state, on whose behalf the warden acts.” Id. On the other hand, “‘[w]here the inmate forwards incomplete, inaccurate, misleading or erroneous information, any subsequent errors by the warden or superintendent will be imputed to the inmate.’” State v. Colon, 2010-Ohio-2326, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Gill, 2004-Ohio-1245, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.). Accord State v. Jarvis, 2023-Ohio-4229, ¶ 6 (9th Dist.). {¶9} In his motion to dismiss, filed May 7, 2025, Lewis alleged that he “was in the custody of the Trumbull County Sheriff awaiting a preliminary hearing on the present case when he was transported to Lorain Correctional Institution” and that he “requested that notices of availability be filed upon his arrival in ODRC custody, as can be seen in the notice that was actually delivered to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.” Lewis claimed that the “180-day time for bringing the case to trial expired between October 20 and October 23, 2024.” {¶10} Attached to Lewis’s motion are two unverified and unattested exhibits. “Exhibit A” includes the following: (1) a letter on ODRC letterhead dated April 23, 2024, addressed to “prosecuting attorney” and signed by “T Rosales, Record Office,” advising that Lewis is imprisoned on “Trumbull 2023CR682” and requesting early disposition of case No. 23CR5450; (2) “Notice of Untried Indictments, Information or Complaint and of Rights to Request Disposition,” notifying Lewis that he has a detainer in case No. 23CR5450, signed by Lewis on April 26, 2024, and requesting early disposition under R.C. 2941.401; (3) “Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Request for Disposition of Indictments, Information or Complaints,” addressed to Franklin County Common Pleas PAGE 4 OF 10 Case No. 2026-T-0006 Prosecuting Attorney, signed by Lewis on April 26, 2024, and requesting final disposition be made for case No. 23CR5450. “Exhibit B” includes an undated “Notice to Offender,” informing Lewis that he has an active warrant with the Trumbull County Sheriff in Warren Municipal Court case No. 23CRA002345. (This case was subsequently bound over to the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas and assigned case No. 2025 CR 00090, which is the subject of the instant appeal.) {¶11} The trial court overruled Lewis’s motion to dismiss, finding Lewis did not comply with the procedure set forth in R.C. 2941.401. Upon de novo review, we agree with the State’s position that the exhibits submitted with Lewis’s motion reveal that he did not “cause to be delivered” his written notice and request for final disposition in this case. {¶12} Notably absent from Lewis’s motion to dismiss is any written notice of the place of his imprisonment and any request for final disposition to the warden of the institution where he was incarcerated that includes the case number of the Trumbull County case at issue here (i.e., Common Pleas case No. 2025 CR 00090 or Warren Municipal case No. 23CRA002345). The exhibits submitted in support of Lewis’s motion to dismiss reflect that he only submitted a request for final disposition of the Franklin County Case. Lewis’s failure to request final disposition of this case is imputed to him, not the warden, and the speedy trial clock in this case never started for purposes of R.C. 2941.401. See Jarvis, 2023-Ohio-4229, at ¶ 10 (9th Dist.); Colon, 2010-Ohio-2326, at ¶ 23 (5th Dist.); Gill, 2004-Ohio-1245, at ¶ 17 (8th Dist.). Consequently, this case is distinguishable from Williams, 2023-Ohio-3647, where the defendant “satisfied his every obligation under” R.C. 2941.401, and from Dillon, 2007-Ohio-3617 (cited by appellant in PAGE 5 OF 10 Case No. 2026-T-0006 support of his assignment of error), where the warden initially failed to deliver the indictment and notice to the defendant. {¶13} Lewis’s first assignment of error is without merit. Consecutive Sentences {¶14} In his second assignment of error, Lewis contends the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences is unsupported by the record. In his third assignment of error, Lewis contends the trial court imposed a sentence contrary to law. {¶15} “Under Ohio’s statutory sentencing scheme, there is a presumption that a defendant’s multiple prison sentences will be served concurrently, R.C. 2929.41(A), unless certain circumstances not applicable in this case apply, see, e.g., R.C. 2929.14(C)(1) through (3), or the trial court makes findings supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).” State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-1083, ¶ 11. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides: If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following: (a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to [R.C. 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18], or was under post-release control for a prior offense. (b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct. PAGE 6 OF 10 Case No. 2026-T-0006  (c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender. “Though ‘a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, . . . it has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings. Nor is it required to give a talismanic incantation of the words of the statute, provided that the necessary findings can be found in the record and are incorporated into the sentencing entry.’” Jones at ¶ 11, quoting State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 37. {¶16} R.C. 2953.08(G) instructs appellate courts reviewing the imposition of consecutive sentences as follows: (2) The court hearing an appeal under [R.C. 2953.08(A), (B), or (C)] shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court. 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 [R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)]; (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. “R.C. 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court to review the entire trial-court record, including any oral or written statements made to or by the trial court at the sentencing hearing, and any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed. R.C. 2953.08(F)(1) through (4).” Jones at ¶ 12. PAGE 7 OF 10 Case No. 2026-T-0006  {¶17} “The standard to be applied is the standard set forth in the statute: an appellate court has the authority to increase, reduce, otherwise modify, or vacate a sentence only after it has reviewed the entire trial-court record and ‘clearly and convincingly f[ound] either . . . [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under [certain statutes]’ or ‘[t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,’ R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).” Id. at ¶ 13; see also State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 22. {¶18} Here, the transcript of Lewis’s sentencing hearing clearly shows that the trial court made the findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences, and Lewis has not demonstrated that those findings were not supported by the record. As noted by the trial court, “The Defendant has an extensive criminal history of arrests and convictions. The Defendant has eleven prior felony convictions. The Defendant has served eleven prior prison sentences based on those felony convictions. And he was rejected by NEOCAP and is at a high risk to re-offend. The Defendant was on probation when the instant offense was committed.” The trial court specifically found that “consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public.” In addition, the trial court explicitly stated that Lewis’s “history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by him.” {¶19} At sentencing, Lewis’s counsel recounted his history of drug addiction and requested community control sanctions. On appeal, Lewis notes the instant offenses involved small quantities of narcotics and caused no harm to any victim. However, the trial court made the findings necessary for the discretionary imposition of consecutive PAGE 8 OF 10 Case No. 2026-T-0006 prison sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and those findings are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), and are memorialized in the sentencing entry. Moreover, the imposed sentence was within the statutory range for fifth-degree felonies, R.C. 2929.14(A)(5), and the trial court expressly considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing, including the relevant seriousness and recidivism factors. {¶20} Lewis’s second and third assignments of error are without merit. {¶21} The judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. JOHN J. EKLUND, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., concur. PAGE 9 OF 10 Case No. 2026-T-0006  JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignments of error are without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Trumbull 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 10 OF 10 Case No. 2026-T-0006