Full Opinion

[Cite as State v. Addicott, 2026-Ohio-4225.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2026-T-0025 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas TRENT ADDICOTT, Trial Court No. 2024 CR 00438 Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: October 26, 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). Michael A. Partlow, P.O. Box 1562, Stow, OH 44224 (For Defendant-Appellant). JOHN J. EKLUND, J. {¶1} Appellant, Trent Addicott, appeals his judgment of conviction from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas after pleading no contest to four counts of Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor, second-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2907.322. {¶2} In a previous appeal, State v. Addicott, 2025-Ohio-1785 (11th Dist.) (“Addicott I”), we affirmed Appellants convictions as to Counts 1, 2, and 7 through 11, reversed as to Counts 3 through 6, and remanded the matter to the trial court “for further proceedings consistent with” our Opinion. Id. at ¶ 53. Appellant has raised one assignment of error arguing that the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Dismiss Counts 3 through 6 violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. {¶3} Having reviewed the record and the applicable caselaw, we find Appellant’s assignment of error to be without merit. We reversed and remanded as to Counts 3 through 6 because the trial court erred by admitting testimonial exhibits in violation of Appellant’s right to confront witnesses. Id. at ¶ 51. Appellant was eligible to be retried on these counts because the error was the trial court’s admitting of these exhibits, and not the insufficiency of the evidence. The trial court did not err in denying his Motion to Dismiss. {¶4} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. Substantive and Procedural History {¶5} On June 12, 2024, Appellant was indicted on the following: Counts 1 and 2: Pandering Sexual Obscenity Involving a Minor, second-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(1); Counts 3 through 6: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor, second-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(1); and Counts 7 through 11: Sexual Conduct with an Animal, second-degree misdemeanors in violation of R.C. 959.21 and 959.99. Appellant pled not guilty. {¶6} On August 27, 2024, the matter proceeded to jury trial, and Appellant was found guilty on all counts. {¶7} On September 3, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an indefinite sentence of eight to twelve years in prison on Count 1; eight years in prison on Count 2, to be served consecutively to Count 1; eight years in prison on Counts 3 through 6, to be PAGE 2 OF 7 Case No. 2026-T-0025 served concurrently to each other but consecutively to Count 1; and a 90-day jail term on Counts 7 through 11, to be served concurrently, for an aggregate prison sentence of 24- 28 years. {¶8} We affirmed Appellant’s convictions on Counts 1, 2, and 7 through 11. Addicott I, 2025-Ohio-1785, at ¶ 53 (11th Dist.). However, we determined that the trial court erred by admitting certain exhibits for the truth of the matter asserted without being properly authenticated as business records. Id. at ¶ 51. These exhibits were testimonial in nature, and their admission violated Appellant’s right to confront witnesses against him. Id. Therefore, we determined that Appellant’s convictions as to Counts 3 through 6 were based on inadmissible hearsay evidence and ordered those counts vacated. Id. at ¶ 52. Therefore, we reversed as to Counts 3 through 6 “and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Id. at ¶ 53. {¶9} On remand, the trial court set a jury trial on Counts 3 through 6. {¶10} On August 19, 2025, Appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss/Judgment of Acquittal, seeking the dismissal of Counts 3 through 6. He argued that double jeopardy precluded him being retried on those Counts. His reasoning was that this Court had remanded the case as to Counts 3 through 6 because “of the State’s failure to produce sufficient evidence at trial to sustain its burden of proof and support a conviction.” However, Appellant did not cite to any specific portion of our opinion in Addicott I to support this assertion. The State filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. {¶11} On October 14, 2025, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry denying Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Judgment Entry said that because the appellate decision vacating Appellant’s conviction on Counts 3 through 6 was based on the PAGE 3 OF 7 Case No. 2026-T-0025 improper admission of evidence, rather than the insufficiency of the evidence, “the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit retrial in this matter . . . .” {¶12} On March 2, 2026, Appellant entered a plea of no contest, and the trial court sentenced him to eight years on Counts 3 through 6, to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to the prior sentence imposed on Counts 1, 2, and 7 through 11, for a total sentence of 24 to 28 years. This sentence was identical to the one previously imposed. {¶13} Appellant timely appealed raising one assignment of error. Assignment of Error and Analysis {¶14} Appellant’s sole assignment of error states: “THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION.” {¶15} Appellant cites Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978), arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “precludes a second trial once the reviewing court has found the evidence insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty.” He argues that in our opinion remanding this case for further proceedings, we “did not specifically remand the matter for a new trial. Rather, the remand appears to order reversal of Appellant’s convictions [for Counts 3 through 6] . . . . A new trial is not mentioned at all.” {¶16} The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The similar protections afforded by Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution “are coextensive.” State v. Martello, 2002-Ohio-6661, ¶ 7. “A de novo standard of review is applied to the trial court's determination regarding the PAGE 4 OF 7 Case No. 2026-T-0025 application of the double jeopardy clause.” State v. Miller, 2020-Ohio-3854, ¶ 56 (11th Dist.). {¶17} That the Double Jeopardy Clause “does not preclude the Government's retrying a defendant whose conviction is set aside because of an error in the proceedings leading to conviction is a well-established part of our constitutional jurisprudence.” United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 465 (1964). “It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction.” Id. at 466. {¶18} In Burks, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded retrial of a defendant after reversals based on evidentiary insufficiency. Id. at 17. The Court said that reversal for trial error, rather than the insufficiency of the evidence, “does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case.” Id. at 15. “[W]hen a defendant's conviction has been overturned due to a failure of proof at trial, . . . the prosecution cannot complain of prejudice, for it has been given one fair opportunity to offer whatever proof it could assemble.” Id. at 17. “Moreover, such an appellate reversal means that the government's case was so lacking that it should not have even been submitted to the jury.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. {¶19} Similarly, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “when evidence admitted at trial is sufficient to support a conviction, but on appeal, some of that evidence is determined to have been improperly admitted, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions will not bar retrial.” State v. Brewer, 2009-Ohio-593, ¶ 25. PAGE 5 OF 7 Case No. 2026-T-0025 However, where the reversal is based on insufficiency of the evidence, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial. Girard v. Giordano, 2018-Ohio-5024, ¶ 10. {¶20} In Addicott I, 2025-Ohio-1785 (11th Dist.), we reversed Appellant’s convictions on Counts 3 through 6 because those convictions were “based on inadmissible hearsay evidence” in violation “of Appellant’s right to confront witnesses against him.” Id. at ¶ 52. We remanded “for further proceedings consistent” with our opinion. Id. at ¶ 53. Nothing in our holding said or suggested that our reversal related to the insufficiency of the State’s evidence. Thus, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply, and the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 3 through 6. {¶21} Accordingly, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is without merit. {¶22} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. MATT LYNCH, P.J., SCOTT LYNCH, J., concur. PAGE 6 OF 7 Case No. 2026-T-0025 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 Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against Appellant. JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH, concurs JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, 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-T-0025