Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

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 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Crislip

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 789
• Docket Number: 2025-T-0046

• Judges: Lucci

• Opinion

• Authorities (26)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.4K)

• PDF

Syllabus

CRIMINAL LAW - felonious assault; firearm specification; having weapons under disability; alleged ineffective assistance of counsel; motions for continuance; alleged lack of preparation; motions for continuance not uncommon in a criminal matter; no argument relating to prejudice; opening statement; no evidence or argument regarding counsel's alleged deficiency; admission of facts by defense of self-defense; no prejudice for calling witnesses; defendant has a right to testify; recalling victim and police officer assisted in defense; defense counsel effectively cross-examined state's witnesses; standing order to testify regarding victim's prior actions against defendant's mother; no ineffectiveness for failing to object to admission of defendant's police interview; no ineffectiveness for making a motion to dismiss; no ineffectiveness in closing argument; no ineffectiveness for conduct or omissions during sentencing; no ineffectiveness regarding alleged failure to advise defendant to accept plea deal; voluntary decision; no obvious prejudice due to counsel's prior representation of state's witness; no error in excusing one juror but not another; sufficient, credible evidence of physical harm via a deadly weapon; felony sentence not contrary to law; convictions supported by manifest weight of the evidence; sufficient, credible evidence that defendant acted knowingly.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Crislip, 2026-Ohio-789.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-T-0046

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas

ASHLEY CRISLIP
a.k.a. ASHLEY WINTERS, Trial Court No. 2024 CR 00764

Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: March 9, 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).

Aaron M. Meikle, 173 West Market Street, Warren, OH 44481 (For Defendant-
Appellant).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Ashley Crislip, a.k.a. Ashley Winters, appeals the judgment of

the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas sentencing her to a term of 36 months in

prison after she pleaded guilty to an amended indictment which included multiple felony

charges. We affirm.

{¶2} Appellant entered a plea of guilty to an amended indictment charging her

with one count of trafficking in cocaine, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C.

2925.03(A)(1) and (C)(4)(a); one count of trafficking in fentanyl-related compound, a
felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) and (C)(9)(a); one count of

trafficking in cocaine, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) and

(C)(4)(b); two counts of trafficking in fentanyl-related compounds, felonies of the fourth

degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) and (C)(9)(b); one count of possession of

cocaine, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(4)(c), with a

forfeiture specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A), R.C. 2981.02(A)(1)(b) and/or

(A)(1)(c)(i), and R.C. 2981.04; one count of possession of heroin, a felony of the third

degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(6)(c); and one count of possession of a

fentanyl-related compound, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)

and (C)(11)(c). Pursuant to statute, the third-degree felonies to which appellant pleaded

guilty carried a presumption of a prison term. See R.C. 2925.11(C)(4)(c), (C)(6)(c), and

(C)(11)(c).

{¶3} During the plea hearing, the State asserted that, had the matter gone to

trial, it would have established that appellant, on June 18, 2019, sold a confidential

informant .35 grams of cocaine and .18 grams of fentanyl. On the following day, appellant

sold a confidential informant .18 grams of a fentanyl mix and .34 grams of cocaine. Each

of these transactions took place within the vicinity of Warren G. Harding High School.

Later, on July 11, 2019, appellant sold a confidential informant .27 grams of a fentanyl

mix and this transaction also took place within the vicinity of Warren G. Harding High

School. Finally, on July 16, 2019, members of the drug action task force executed a

search warrant for appellant’s residence. Officers recovered 10 grams of fentanyl,

approximately 10 grams of heroin, approximately 20 grams of cocaine, $512 in cash, as

well as firearms.

PAGE 2 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
{¶4} After a thorough colloquy, the trial court accepted appellant’s guilty plea and

ordered a presentence investigation report (“PSI”).

{¶5} At sentencing, the court stated it had considered the record, oral

statements, the PSI, and any victim impact statements. The court also considered the

purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and

recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. The court then ordered appellant to serve a term

of 36 months in prison.1

{¶6} Appellant now appeals the judgment of conviction and assigns four errors

for this court’s review. Because her first two assigned errors are related, they shall be

addressed together. They provide, respectively:

[1.] The trial court erred by considering improper, speculative,
and personal factors at sentencing, in violation of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio
Constitution and R.C. 2929.11 - 2929.12.

[2.] The trial court failed to properly weigh mitigating evidence
and rehabilitation presented in the PSI, rendering the
sentence contrary to law under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.
2929.12.

{¶7} R.C. 2953.08(G) governs an appellate court’s review of felony sentences,

and provides, in relevant part, that after an appellate court’s review of the record, it “may

increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or

may vacate the sentence and remand . . . if it clearly and convincingly finds . . . [t]hat the

sentence is (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,

1. The court ordered 12 months in prison for each of the felony-four and felony-five counts and 36 months for each of the three felony-three counts, all to be served concurrently for an aggregate term of 36 months.

PAGE 3 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; (b)

[t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b), see also

State v. Lamb, 2023-Ohio-2834, ¶ 9 (11th Dist.); State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 15.

{¶8} “‘“[A] sentence is contrary to law when it does not fall within the statutory

range for the offense or if the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of

felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C.

2929.12.”’” Lamb at ¶ 10, quoting State v. Shannon, 2021-Ohio-789, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.),

quoting State v. Brown, 2017-Ohio-8416, ¶ 74 (2d Dist.).

{¶9} That said, “this court has frequently noted that ‘even though a trial court is

required to consider the R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors, it is not required to make

specific findings on the record to comport with its statutory obligations.’” Lamb at ¶ 10,

quoting Shannon at ¶ 17.

{¶10} “[A] trial court ‘fulfills its duty under the statutes by indicating that it has

considered the relevant sentencing factors.’” State v. Clinton, 2017-Ohio-9423, ¶ 243,

quoting State v. Smith, 2014-Ohio-1520, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.).

{¶11} Further, even where the record is silent as to R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.

2929.12, there is a presumption that the court considered the required factors; that is,

consideration of the appropriate factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 can

be presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows to the contrary. State v. Jones,

2014-Ohio-29, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.). And, significantly, “[n]othing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits

an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its

judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance

with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42.

PAGE 4 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
{¶12} We initially point out that, appellant did not raise any of the points with which

she takes issue under these assigned errors at the sentencing hearing and, in this

respect, they are forfeited for all but plain error. See State v. Gause, 2024-Ohio-372, ¶ 14

(5th Dist.) (concluding an appellant who raises the issue of “consistency” in sentencing

for the first time on appeal, and has offered no plain error analysis, and has forfeited

review of the issue); State v. Spahr, 2009-Ohio-4609, ¶ 34 (2d Dist.) (concluding that an

appellant’s failure to raise or object to factual matters addressed at sentencing forfeited

those issues on appeal save plain error.).

{¶13} Appellant first argues that the trial court failed to fully and carefully consider

the R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors. She maintains various factors militate in favor

of a less severe sentence because (1) none of the “seriousness” factors under division

R.C. 2929.12(B) were applicable to her case; (2) three of the four factors (considerations

making her conduct less serious) pursuant to RC. 2929.12(C) were present and ignored

by the trial court; and (3) the factors under R.C. 2929.12(D) and (E) indicate she is unlikely

to recidivate.

{¶14} Here, the trial court stated it “considered the purposes and principles of

felony sentencing, including 2929.11 and 2929.12, [i.e.,] the relevant seriousness and

recidivism factors.” Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because it is within the

statutory range and the trial court considered the relevant factors. And, significantly,

because a presumption of prison time attached to each felony-three count to which

appellant pleaded, she could have received up to nine years on these counts alone. She

received 36 months. In this regard, appellant’s sentence cannot be viewed as particularly

harsh.

PAGE 5 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
{¶15} Given the narrow scope of our standard of review under R.C.

2953.08(G)(2)(a), “we are prohibited from ‘looking behind’ the court’s decision with

respect to R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Orr, 2024-Ohio-4707, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.).

{¶16} As such, this court has underscored “and admonish[ed] all counsel in this

district to observe, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) does not provide a basis for an appellate court

to modify or vacate a sentence based on the lack of support in the record for the trial

court's findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Gibbs, 2022-Ohio-4792, ¶ 60-

61 (11th Dist.) (citing multiple cases from this district underscoring the untenability of

arguments challenging individual sentences via R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12,

pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a)).

{¶17} Given this point, this court, in State v. Little, 2024-Ohio-5375, ¶ 12 (11th

Dist.), observed that it “does not seek to upbraid the defense bar for advancing arguments

in prosecuting a defendant’s appeal of right. Unless, however, the General Assembly

revisits this court’s standard of review relating to the R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.

2929.12 factors, we are simply without statutory authority to review whether the record

supports an individual sentence under those provisions.” Accordingly, appellant’s

arguments challenging the trial court’s failure to adequately consider or weigh the R.C.

2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors are without merit.

{¶18} Next, appellant takes issue with the trial court’s post-sentencing remarks.

Specifically, after the trial court ordered appellant to serve 36 months in prison, the trial

court admonished appellant regarding the nature and context of the crimes she

committed. Appellant maintains the rebuke rendered her sentence contrary to law

PAGE 6 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
because it demonstrates the court based its decision upon “speculative community harm

and personal comparisons.” We do not agree.

{¶19} After ordering each sentence to be served concurrently, for a total of 36

months, the trial court stated:

I understand that you care about your children. But, quite
frankly, what about all those children that grew up and went
to Warren Harding and had you sitting there selling them
fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and what about them being
poisoned? All those parents who were really concerned about
their children, who brought up their children to the age of 13,
14, and then they are addicted on drugs.

You, ma’am, are - - as a grandmother of three young children,
the kind of person that you like would be the scariest person
to me because you look like my daughter-in-law. You look like
her friends. And nobody would come to you with fear, and yet
you’re there trying to poison them. Okay? So I am giving you
[three] years because of what you did. I think you are sincere
about wanting to change your life, but I haven’t had proof of
that at this time based on your behavior then. You had a child
in your home when you were selling drugs. Your child.

{¶20} As emphasized above, the judge’s comments occurred after she imposed

sentence. Sequentially, therefore, we cannot conclude the comments were causally

related to or formed the foundation for the sentence the judge imposed.

{¶21} To the extent appellant asserts the foregoing comments shaped the trial

court’s sentence or were improperly based only on the judge’s personal views, we

underscore that “[a] judge’s sentencing requires the exercise of personal judgment; the

court is not required to divorce itself from all personal experiences and make [its] decision

in a vacuum.” State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516, 529 (1992). Judges are humans, not

automatons. They bring personal experience and empirical grounding to their position.

They do not simply regurgitate legal principles or mechanically rule on filings, and neither

PAGE 7 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
the bar nor society at large would desire a judge to simply fill such a role. Indeed, how

could a judge be effective if he or she operated outside of the society that he or she

serves? A judge does not merely serve as a judge but functions as a citizen as well as a

person.

{¶22} To this point, the Supreme Court of the United States has observed:

We have never suggested that the United States Constitution
requires that a sentencing process should be transformed into
a rigid and mechanical parsing of statutory aggravating
factors. But to attempt to separate the sentencer’s decision
from his [or her] experiences would inevitably do precisely
that. It is entirely fitting for the moral, factual, and legal
judgment of judges . . . to play a meaningful role in sentencing.
We expect that sentencers will exercise their discretion in their
own way and to the best of their ability. As long as that
discretion is guided in a constitutionally adequate way . . . and
as long as the decision is not so wholly arbitrary as to offend
the Constitution, the [Constitution] cannot and should not
demand more.

Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939, 950-951 (1983).2

{¶23} We, of course, recognize a sentencing judge is bound to consider the

relevant factors as required by the sentencing law. Nevertheless, as emphasized by the

above-cited cases, the way a judge performs these duties may be guided by that judge’s

background and experiences. See State v. Arnett, 2000-Ohio-302, ¶ 30-31.

{¶24} Further, appellant’s argument that the trial judge acted with bias is

unfounded. Appellant did not establish, and the record does not show, that the trial court

exhibited bias or prejudice at sentencing. The judge reviewed all relevant sentencing

materials, listened to statements from the parties, and lawfully imposed the sentence. The

1. We acknowledge that Barclay involved a death-penalty case. This, however, only provides a more persuasive foundation for the conclusion that a trial judge, at sentencing for a non-capital felony, commits no error in making observations on record regarding his or her personal perceptions of the facts and circumstances of the matter to the extent those perceptions or observations are not arbitrary or irrelevant.

PAGE 8 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
trial court’s reference to her experience and her judicial comments about the factual

foundation of the charged offenses (i.e., the nature of the offenses and where they

occurred) do not establish, without more, bias toward appellant. Accordingly, we hold the

fact that the trial court’s comments were based on her personal experience and unique

observations as an individual in the community, did not in any way imply those comments

were improper or deprived appellant of due process.

{¶25} As discussed above, the trial court’s sentence was within the statutory

range, and the court considered the necessary statutory factors.

{¶26} Appellant’s first and second assignments of error are without merit.

{¶27} Appellant’s third assignment of error provides:

{¶28} “The trial court violated due process by threatening to revoke Ms. Crislip’s

bond regardless of whether she plead guilty or went to trial, thereby demonstrating that

the court had already predetermined to impose a prison sentence, reflecting judicial

vindictiveness and a lack of impartiality.”

{¶29} Under this assigned error, appellant argues that her right to due process

was violated when, during the plea colloquy, the trial court allegedly “threatened” to

revoke bond regardless of whether she pleaded guilty or went to trial.3 Appellant

maintains this demonstrated that (1) the trial court forced her to plead guilty, and (2) that

incarceration was predetermined. We do not agree.

{¶30} Initially, we point out that the record fails to support appellant’s allegation

that the trial court threatened to revoke her bond to compel her to enter the guilty plea.

During the plea hearing, appellant was given the opportunity to consult with her attorney

1. Appellant was apparently being held in jail after her bond was revoked. Nothing in the record, however, indicates why her bond was originally revoked.

PAGE 9 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
to consider whether she wished to go to trial or plead guilty to the charges in the plea

offer. The following exchange occurred at the hearing:

The Court: Do you have any questions about your rights, the
charges, the penalties, or anything that’s been done here
today?

The Defendant: No, Your Honor. I - - would I be able to speak
to my attorney?

The Court: After the plea is done.

[Defense Counsel]: Well, Your Honor, I think at this point she
might be considering whether or not she wants to enter a plea
today or whether she wants to exercise her right to a trial. I
believe the Court said that we’d be back on Wednesday for
trial?

The Court: Correct. Do you want a few minutes with your
client?

[Defense Counsel]: If I could.

The Court: Go ahead back to the jury room, and we will
continue with the plea if you want. Otherwise, we will continue
with a jury trial this Wednesday.

[Defense Counsel]: And, Your Honor, just on a side note,
should we proceed to trial, would the Court reconsider not
revoking bond prior - - pending trial? Or is bond being revoked
either way?

The Court: Bond is going to be revoked either way.

[Defense Counsel]: May I ask what the basis of that would be?

The Court: She was selling drugs at a school vicinity at
Warren G. Harding, including cocaine, fentanyl, fentanyl-
related compounds, heroin, and such.

[Defense Counsel]: With all due respect, Your Honor, that was
over six years ago. She was not actively selling, like, on the
property. The vicinity includes a very great distance.

The Court: Okay.

PAGE 10 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
[Defense Counsel]: I don’t know that bond revocation,
especially if she were to exercise her right to a trial, would be
appropriate.

The Court: Well, we’ll discuss that once you decide what you
want to do. Go ahead into the jury room, take your time, and
I’ll have a deputy by the door.

[Defense Counsel]: All right.

{¶31} The dialogue between the trial court and defense counsel demonstrates

that, even though the court initially represented bond would be revoked “either way,” the

trial court stated that, if appellant decided to go to trial, the court would revisit the issue.

In fact, appellant vacillated between going to trial and taking the plea. When defense

counsel indicated, at first, that appellant wished to proceed to trial, the trial court stated

the time the trial would commence but stated that if appellant failed to show up for trial,

“the deputies will come to where you are, arrest you and put you in jail, pending this case.”

This representation indicates that, to the extent appellant wished to proceed to trial, she

would be released on bond. After further consultation with defense counsel, however,

appellant agreed to plead guilty to the charges.

{¶32} The trial court twice afforded appellant the opportunity to consult with her

attorney to make certain that entering the guilty plea was in her best interest. After

consultation, defense counsel represented that appellant agreed it would be in her best

interest to enter the plea. There is no indication that the court attempted to compel the

plea through a “threat” of bond revocation. To the contrary, the trial court was

conscientiously open to appellant declining the plea, proceeding to trial, and, if she did

so, the court would “discuss,” with counsel, the propriety of continuing bond revocation.

PAGE 11 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
We therefore hold there was no indication of compulsion by threat of bond revocation in

this matter.

{¶33} Moreover, appellant’s claim that the trial court had “predetermined”

imprisonment and therefore exhibited judicial bias is not supported by the record.

{¶34} As it pertains to felony sentencing, “Ohio [appellate] courts have held that a

judicial bias claim may be interpreted ‘as an argument that [the defendant’s] sentence is

contrary to law based on a due process violation.’” State v. Johnson, 2019-Ohio-4668, ¶

26 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Frazier, 2017-Ohio-8307, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.); State v. Power,

2013-Ohio-4254, ¶ 22 (7th Dist.) (“biased comments at sentencing can be reviewed for

due process violations”); see also State v. Karpovitch, 2025-Ohio-4323, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.)

(quoting both Johnson and Power). “Judges are presumed not to be biased or prejudiced

toward those appearing before them, and a party alleging bias or prejudice must present

evidence to overcome the presumption.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Sharp, 2020-Ohio-

3497, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.). “The evidence must demonstrate an appearance of bias or

prejudice compelling enough to overcome the presumption of judicial integrity.” Id.

{¶35} After the trial court accepted appellant’s guilty plea, the trial court ordered a

PSI. To this end, the court stated, “[i]t’s my understanding that you have a very limited

criminal history. It’s a matter of just a couple of misdemeanors.” “The purpose of a pre-

sentence investigation report is to inform the sentencing judge of relevant aspects of the

defendant’s history, so that the court will sentence the defendant in an informed,

responsible, and fair manner.” State v. Hay, 2005-Ohio-3443, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.), citing

Machibroda v. United States, 360 F.Supp. 780 (N.D.Ohio, 1973). The fact that the trial

court did not proceed immediately to sentencing but, instead, sought information about

PAGE 12 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
appellant’s background to impose a fair and responsible sentence demonstrates that

prison was not pre-determined. We discern no violation of due process and therefore no

judicial bias.

{¶36} Appellant’s third assignment of error lacks merit.

{¶37} Appellant’s fourth assigned error provides:

{¶38} “The trial court erred by failing to inquire into a potential judicial conflict of

interest raised on the record, violating the defendant’s right to an impartial tribunal under

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.”

{¶39} Appellant contends the trial court violated due process by its alleged refusal

to inquire into a potential prior attorney-client relationship conflict. As a result, appellant

contends there was evidence of judicial vindictiveness, coercion, and a lack of impartiality.

We do not agree.

{¶40} After the dialogue between the trial court and defense counsel, regarding

whether appellant wished to plead guilty or proceed to trial, defense counsel raised a

potential conflict with the trial court. The following exchange took place on the record:

[Defense Counsel]: While we were discussing all options, it
was brought to our attention that should this case proceed to
trial, the person who we’re pointing the finger at actually had
you as an attorney. We didn’t get a chance to fully look into
that as to whether there would be a conflict. However, this
case is directly tied to the individual that you would have
represented as defense counsel.

The Court: In this case?

[Defense Counsel]: The people in this case, you have
represented - - the addresses would have all been similar.

The Court: Who are they?

PAGE 13 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
[Defense Counsel]: Robert O. Daniels. And I - - trust me, I
understand not remembering and recalling. That’s why we
had wanted to discuss this with you, to maybe see if there
even was a potential [conflict]. But, at this point, I think she
would be willing to proceed to trial. We would ask that bond
be continued, as she is maintaining her innocence in this
matter. She has not done anything to warrant a revocation of
bond. She’s been there for all the hearings.

The Court: We’re going to start picking a jury tomorrow
afternoon.

[Defense Counsel]: Thank you.

The Court: Okay? So we will - - we will proceed. I have no
idea who Robert - - Robert Daniels is a name that is a very
common name. I have no memory of this individual. I definitely
did not defend him in this particular case of - - where he’s a
codefendant, 24-CR-764, because I would have memory of
him. I don’t know - - so I am not going to maintain that there’s
a conflict here. I find it disingenuous that you brought this up
halfway through a plea agreement when I was ready to revoke
her bond after the plea, [defense counsel]. And I stated that
to you. This was - - you’ve had months to enter the issue of a
conflict. She knew exactly who I was from the beginning of my
pretrials here in this case. So I find this strategic in you
bringing this conflict up today. Anyway, I am not going to
remove myself from this case. We are picking a jury tomorrow
afternoon. Bond will be continued.

...

The Court: [To defendant] If you are not here, the deputies will
come to where you are, arrest you and put you in jail, pending
this case.
[Defense Counsel]: She will be here Your Honor.

...

The Court: We are back on record[, after recess,] on State of
Ohio versus Ashley Crislip. . . I was going through post-
release control notification. I’m going to restart that part since
[defense counsel] wanted to have some time with his client to
discuss the plea. And we gave both he and his client over an

PAGE 14 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
hour to discuss whether he wanted - - she wanted to continue
with the plea. And apparently she has decided to do so.

{¶41} R.C. 2701.03 provides the exclusive means by which a litigant can assert

that a common pleas judge is biased or prejudiced. State v. Sankey, 2018-Ohio-2677, ¶

15 (11th Dist.); see also State v. Osie, 2014-Ohio-2966, ¶ 62; Peterman v. Stewart, 2008-

Ohio-2164, ¶ 46 (5th Dist.). The Supreme Court has held that a court of appeals “lacks

jurisdiction to review” a trial court’s denial of a motion to recuse him or herself. State ex

rel. Hough v. Saffold, 2012-Ohio-28, ¶ 2, citing Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440, 441-

442 (1978) (“[s]ince only the Chief Justice or [her] designee may hear disqualification

matters, the Court of Appeals was without authority to pass upon disqualification or to

void the judgment of the trial court upon that basis”). Indeed, in Saffold, the Court stated

a party is not “entitled” to a final, appealable order on a party’s motion for a judge to recuse

him or herself. Id. at ¶ 1-2. Thus, an appellate court clearly lacks any authority to pass

upon the disqualification of a common pleas court judge or to void the judgment of a trial

court on that basis. Sankey at ¶ 16; see also Easterling v. Hafer, 2012-Ohio-2101, ¶ 9 (2d

Dist.).

{¶42} In this case, there was no formal or oral motion to recuse filed. Nor was an

affidavit of disqualification filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

An appellant who fails to file an affidavit of disqualification cannot complain on appeal that

the trial judge was biased. Osie at ¶ 64-65, citing State v. Moore, 2001-Ohio-1892, ¶

4; State v. Hale, 2008-Ohio-3426, ¶ 78. Even if such a motion were made, this court lacks

jurisdiction to consider its denial.

{¶43} “To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him

to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort . . . .” Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434

PAGE 15 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
U.S. 357, 363 (1978). As such, a sentence is unconstitutionally vindictive if it imposes

greater punishment because the defendant exercised a constitutional right, e.g., the right

to a jury trial or the right to appeal. See United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372

(1982) (To be vindictive and thus impermissible, a sentence must be designed to punish

an individual for “exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right.”).

{¶44} Judicial vindictiveness in sentencing is typically alleged where a defendant,

on remand, is subjected to a harsher punishment than that initially imposed. See, e.g.,

North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 724-725 (1969). Here, appellant was sentenced

for the first time and that sentence, as discussed above, was within the statutory range

and not contrary to law.

{¶45} Moreover, there is nothing in the record suggesting that the trial court

imposed its sentence (or threatened to impose the sentence) for appellant exercising her

rights. The trial court allowed appellant to consult with her attorney on two occasions after

the plea colloquy commenced. Appellant was therefore afforded ample opportunity to

determine whether she desired to enter a plea or proceed to trial. She eventually elected

to enter a guilty plea. Although appellant was ordered to serve 36 months (the maximum

for a third-degree felony under these circumstances, see R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b)), she

could have been ordered to serve a significantly greater sentence for the various crimes

to which she pleaded guilty. Considering the facts, appellant has failed to demonstrate

the trial court acted vindictively or otherwise violated her due process rights. We find no

constitutional or statutory infirmities in the trial court’s sentence.

PAGE 16 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
{¶46} Appellant’s final assignment of error lacks merit.

{¶47} The judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

MATT LYNCH, P.J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

PAGE 17 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046
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.

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI

PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH,
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 18 OF 18

Case No. 2025-T-0046