State v. Efford

[Cite as State v. Efford, 2026-Ohio-3574.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-A-0063 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas LINDA EFFORD, Trial Court No. 2025 CR 00253 Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: September 14, 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, and Edith M. Jonas, Assistant Public Defender, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Defendant- Appellant). EUGENE A. LUCCI, J. {¶1} Appellant, Linda Efford, appeals the judgment imposing sentence following her guilty plea to one charge of attempted assault and one charge of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs (“OVI”). We affirm. {¶2} Following a traffic stop in 2025, Efford was charged by indictment with two counts of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse (“OVI”), the first count being in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (G)(1)(e), a felony of the third degree, and the second count being in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(b) and (G)(1)(d), a felony of the fourth degree; and assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A) and (C)(5)(a), a felony of the fourth degree. {¶3} Following plea negotiations, Efford pleaded guilty to an amended count of attempted assault, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2903.13(A) and (C)(5)(a), a felony of the fifth degree; and to the fourth-degree felony OVI as originally charged. The State agreed to dismiss the remaining OVI count. The trial court accepted Efford’s plea, ordered a presentence investigation report, and set the matter for sentencing. {¶4} At sentencing, the trial court sentenced Efford to ten months in prison on the attempted assault count and 24 months in prison on the OVI count, to be served consecutively, for a total prison term of 34 months. Efford timely noticed an appeal, and she now assigns one error for our review. {¶5} In her sole assigned error, Efford contends: {¶6} “The trial judge erred by imposing 1[0] months on Count 2 and 24 months on Count 3 prison sentence to be run consecutively because the trial court did not make the requisite findings supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences as outlined in R.C. 2929.14.” {¶7} This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). That subdivision provides, in pertinent part: The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section 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 PAGE 2 OF 6 Case No. 2025-A-0063  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 . . . (C)(4) of section 2929.14[, (regarding consecutive sentences)] . . . ; (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. {¶8} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a sentencing court may order consecutive service of multiple sentences if it finds (1) it is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender; (2) consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public; and (3) any of the factors in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) are present. Those factors include, as relevant here, that “[t]he offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.” R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c). {¶9} To impose consecutive terms of imprisonment “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, but it has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings.” State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 37. {¶10} Here, Efford maintains that “[t]he record is devoid of the specific findings required by law to justify consecutive terms, and the court failed to articulate those findings at the sentencing hearing or incorporate them into its judgment entry.” {¶11} However, at sentencing, the trial court noted that Efford had several convictions commencing in 1993, including multiple OVIs. The trial court observed: Now, you do have a substantial prior criminal record, a history of criminal convictions as the Court reviewed specifically in PAGE 3 OF 6 Case No. 2025-A-0063  detail in the presentence investigation report. That includes the multiple past OVIs and other convictions, mostly misdemeanors, beginning in 1993 throughout the years. And it does include several drug and alcohol-related offen[s]es, as well as resisting arrest and domestic violence and assault. So there was definitely a long period of time, many years where you were not law abiding. Now, one of the concerns here from the record, is that there was a gap of time where you followed the law and it appears you were doing well. You worked hard to do that and you mention that. The Court appreciates that. But again, we are here, because of the present offenses. And so it’s concerning that there was -- that we’re back here. I’ll be very honest with you. It is very concerning. You had trouble following the rules of probation previously in Cuyahoga County, that was prior to 2014 . . . And then also . . . in Cleveland Municipal Court. There is a pattern of drug and alcohol use here. These are serious offenses. This is a felony OVI and not your first one. Also, there’s an attempted assault here with a victim. {¶12} With specific respect to consecutive service of the sentences, the trial court found that “consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the defendant and that consecutive sentences will not be disproportionate [to] the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and to the danger the defendant poses to [the] public.” The Court further found that “the defendant’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the defendant.” {¶13} The trial court incorporated these findings in the judgment entry, stating: The Court has determined that the Defendant shall serve prison terms consecutively pursuant to R.C. 2929.14 and that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the Defendant, and that consecutive sentences will not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct and to the danger the Defendant poses to the public. The Court further finds that the PAGE 4 OF 6 Case No. 2025-A-0063  Defendant’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the Defendant[,] as the Court[’]s review of the Defendant’s past criminal conviction history in the pre- sentence investigation report showed multiple past offenses including past Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence offenses and past Resisting Arrest, Domestic Violence and drug-related offenses. {¶14} Nonetheless, Efford appears to maintain that, because her history of past offenses is not as severe as the defendant’s history in State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-1083, consecutive sentences are improper. See id. at ¶ 8 (criminal history of the defendant included “53 traffic convictions”). However, there is no requirement that a defendant’s criminal history include any particular number of past offenses to permit the court to impose consecutive sentences. As set forth above, we cannot reverse a court’s imposition of consecutive service of sentences unless the record clearly and convincingly fails to support the statutory findings or is otherwise contrary to law. Based on the foregoing, we cannot say this standard is met in the present case. {¶15} Accordingly, Efford’s sole assigned error is without merit. {¶16} The judgment is affirmed. MATT LYNCH, P.J., JOHN J. EKLUND, J., concur. PAGE 5 OF 6 Case No. 2025-A-0063  JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s sole 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. JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI 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-A-0063