Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer
Ohio Case Law

State v. Starcher, 2025-Ohio-4777

Case Information

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth Appellate District, Holmes County
Date: 2025-10-17
Citation: 2025-Ohio-4777
Read the Opinion

Summary

Summary: The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s imposition of a prison sentence for aggravated drug possession, finding it was supported by the record and not contrary to law, despite the defendant’s argument that community control would have been appropriate.

Key Holdings

  • A trial court’s prison sentence for a third-degree felony drug offense is presumed valid if within the statutory range and supported by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 considerations
  • Appellate courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the trial court regarding the weight of sentencing factors unless the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law
  • A prior criminal record and violations of community control support a trial court’s finding that recidivism is more likely
  • The trial court is not required to make express findings to rebut a presumption for community control when a prison presumption applies

More Information

The Appellant pled guilty to aggravated possession of drugs with a forfeiture specification, receiving stolen property, and one count of counterfeiting, all stemming from a July 2024 indictment. He was sentenced to a 24-month aggregate prison term, to be served concurrently with an eight-year term from a separate case involving sex offenses against minors. On appeal, the Appellant claimed the trial court erred by sentencing him to prison instead of imposing community control.

The appellate court applied the standard in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), under which a sentence may only be reversed if it is clearly and convincingly contrary to law or unsupported by the record. The court noted that the sentence was within the statutory ranges for the offenses and that the trial court had properly considered the statutory factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Although the Appellant argued that his past convictions were outdated and his offense was a typical possession charge, the trial court found the presumption for a prison term applicable and noted the Appellant’s repeated probation violations and recent criminal conduct while on bond. The court concluded that recidivism was more likely and that the Appellant’s criminal history and failure to reform justified a prison term.

The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion and the sentence was not contrary to law, reiterating that it could not reweigh the sentencing factors or substitute its own judgment for the trial court’s determinations.