Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Lanier

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 762
• Docket Number: OT-25-017, OT-25-018

• Judges: Osowik

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

Per Osowik, J., trial court judgment is affirmed. This court cannot find that the record does not clearly and convincingly support the trial court's findings

Combined Opinion

                        by [Thomas J. Osowik](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8121/thomas-j-osowik/)

[Cite as State v. Lanier, 2026-Ohio-762.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
OTTAWA COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. OT-25-017
OT-25-018
OT-25-019

Appellee Trial Court No. 24 CR 048
24 CR 224
v. 24 CR 225

Jareel Lanier DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: March 6, 2026

---

James J. VanEerten, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Barbara Gallé, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

W. Alex Smith, for appellant.

---

OSOWIK, P.J.
Procedural History

{¶ 1} This is a consolidated appeal of sentences imposed on three separate cases

from the Court of Common Pleas of Ottawa County, Ohio. On March 20, 2024, appellant,

Jareel Lanier, was indicted on one count of Theft, a felony of the fifth degree, and one

count of Possessing Criminal Tools, a felony of the fifth degree, in case No. 24CR-048.

{¶ 2} On September 25, 2024, appellant was indicted on one count of Felonious

Assault, a felony of the second degree, one count of Strangulation, a felony of the second
degree, one count of Strangulation, a felony of the third degree, one count of Disrupting

Public Services, a felony of the fourth degree, one count of Domestic Violence, a felony

of the fifth degree, one count of Tampering with Evidence, a felony of the third degree,

one count of Obstructing Official Business, a felony of the fifth degree, and one count of

Resisting Arrest, a misdemeanor of the second degree, in case No. 24-CR-224.

{¶ 3} On September 25, 2024, Appellant was indicted on one count of Theft, a

felony of the fifth degree, in case No. 24-CR-225.

{¶ 4} On February 7, 2025, appellant pled guilty to one count of Theft, a felony of

the fifth degree, in case No. 24-CR-048, one count of Attempted Felonious Assault, a

felony of the third degree, and one count of Obstructing Official Business, a felony of the

fifth degree, in case No. 24-CR-224, and one count of Theft, a felony of the fifth degree,

in case No. 24-CR-225.

{¶ 5} On March 28, 2025, appellant was sentenced to six months on each felony of

the fifth degree and thirty-six months on the felony of the third degree in the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The sentences were run concurrently for a

total period of incarceration of 36 months. Appellant received credit for 201days

previously served, as well as any days awaiting transport.

{¶ 6} Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal in each case, which have been

consolidated by this court.

Assignment of Error

{¶ 7} Lanier presents a single assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED

BY IMPOSING A PRISON TERM

2.
{¶ 8} Appellant concedes that each individual prison term imposed in each case, 6

months for the fifth-degree felonies and 36 months for the third-degree felony, is within

the statutory range provided by R.C. 2929.14(A). Therefore, the sentences are not

contrary to law.

{¶ 9} Appellant also concedes that the court explicitly stated that it considered the

principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Further, the

court also made a finding that Lanier was not amenable to community control and was

properly notified about mandatory post-release control. Despite these concessions,

appellant asks this court to review his sentence as he believes that he should have

received a community control sanction.

Analysis

{¶ 10} We will note that appellant has presented no challenge to the trial court’s

consideration of sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Rightfully so

since this court long ago recognized that the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v.

Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, precludes our review of felony sentences based solely on the

contention that the trial court improperly considered the factors identified in R.C.

2929.11 and 2929.12. State v. Lanier, 2022-Ohio-1697, ¶ 19 (6th Dist.).

{¶ 11} This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which

provides, in pertinent part,

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

3.
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.

State v. Coon, 2025-Ohio-1849, ¶ 20 (6th Dist.).

{¶ 12} R.C. 2929.13(B) (1)(b) specifically gives a court discretion to impose a

prison term upon an offender who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the

fourth or fifth degree that is not an offense of violence if the offender had previously

served a prison term or the offender committed the offense while under a community

control sanction while on probation, or while released from custody on a bond or

personal recognizance.

{¶ 13} The record establishes that both of these statutory conditions were present

in these cases so as to enable the trial court discretion to impose a prison term on each of

these charges.

{¶ 14} In case No. 24-CR-048, Lanier was given a personal recognizance bond on

this Theft charge for an offense alleged to have occurred on March 2, 2024. While out on

this bond, appellant was indicted on September 25, 2024, for Felonious Assault,

Strangulation, Disrupting Public Service, Domestic Violation, Tampering With Evidence

and Obstructing Official Business alleged to have occurred on September 17, 2024 in

case No. 24-CR-224.

4.
{¶ 15} Still while on personal recognizance bond, he was indicted in case No. CR-

24-225 for Theft alleged to have occurred from June 22- 24, 2024.In addition, Lanier had

previously served a prison term after violating conditions of community control. See

State v. Lanier, 2022-Ohio-1697, ¶ 8 (6th Dist.).

{¶ 16} Accordingly, upon our review of the record, we cannot clearly nor

convincingly find that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under

division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Conclusion

{¶ 17} For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the Ottawa County Court of

Common Pleas are affirmed. Lanier is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to

App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, PJ.
JUDGE

Myron C. Duhart, J.
JUDGE

Charles E. Sulek, J.
CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

5.