[Cite as State v. Worden, 2026-Ohio-2444.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO Case Nos. CT2025-0083
CT 2025-0084
Plaintiff - Appellee
Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vsAppeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case
LOVELY WORDEN Nos. CR2024-0804 & CR2025-0120
Defendant - Appellant Judgment: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry: June 24, 2026
BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin; Andrew J. King; David M. Gormley, Judges
APPEARANCES: JOSEPH A. PALMER, for Plaintiff-Appellee; BRIAN A. SMITH, for Defendant-Appellant.
King, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Lovely Worden appeals the August 13, 2025 judgment
entries of conviction and sentence of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas in
case numbers CR2024-0804 and CR2025-0120. We affirm the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On July 22, 2024, Worden was a passenger in her boyfriend's car when he
wrecked the car. Worden left the scene of the accident on foot because her boyfriend was
not waking up and she assumed he had overdosed on fentanyl. The car was later searched
at the impound lot. A box containing 24 grams of methamphetamine, a digital scale, and
$124 in cash were located under the front passenger seat. Worden was later charged with
aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the second degree.
{¶ 3} On December 9, 2024, Worden recruited associates to retrieve her daughter
from the home of a man who was allegedly assaulting her and holding her hostage.
Worden kicked in the door of the residence and extracted her daughter from the home.
After they left the scene Worden's daughter disclosed she had also been raped. Thereafter,
Worden acquired a shotgun from a co-defendant and drove back toward the location
where her daughter had been held. On the way, Worden and her coconspirators saw a
man walking down the street whom they believed was the person responsible for
assaulting Worden's daughter. Worden got out of the car and tried to fire the shotgun but
was unsuccessful. A coconspirator took the shotgun from Worden and shot the victim.
The victim was completely unrelated to the incident with Worden's daughter. He
sustained serious injury after being hit with more than 100 pieces of buckshot.
{¶ 4} As a result of that incident, Worden was charged with one count of
attempted aggravated burglary, one count of conspiracy to commit murder with a 3-year
firearm specification, one count of attempted murder with a 5-year drive-by shooting
firearm specification, two counts of felonious assault with 3-year and 5-year firearm
specifications, two counts of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises with
3-year and 5-year firearm specifications, one count of improperly handling a firearm in a
motor vehicle, and one count of possessing criminal tools.
{¶ 5} On March 10, 2025, following plea negotiations with the State, in the 2024
case, Worden pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine, a felony of the
third degree. In the 2025 case, Worden entered pleas of guilty to one count of attempted
aggravated burglary, a felony of the second degree, one count of conspiracy to commit
murder, a felony of the first degree, and one count of felonious assault, a felony of the
second degree and the attendant 5-year firearm specification. In exchange for Worden's pleas the State dismissed the balance of the indictment. The trial court accepted Worden's
pleas, convicted her, ordered a presentence investigation and set the matter over for
sentencing.
{¶ 6} Worden appeared for sentencing on August 11, 2025. After considering the
presentence investigation, the circumstances of the offenses, and the victim impact
statement, in the 2024 case the trial court sentenced Worden to 18 months for possession
of methamphetamine, a felony of the third degree. In the 2025 case, the trial court
sentenced Worden to 6 years for attempted aggravated burglary, a felony of the second
degree, 7 to 10.5 years for conspiracy to commit murder, a felony of the first degree, 8
years for felonious assault, and 5 years for the attendant gun specification. The trial court
found Worden had committed the worst form of felonious assault. The court ordered
Worden to serve the sentence for attempted aggravated burglary and conspiracy to
commit murder concurrently, but consecutive to her sentence for felonious assault and
the gun specification. The trial court ordered Worden to serve the sentence in the 2025
case consecutive to the sentence in the 2024 case for an aggregate prison term of 21.5
years to 25 years.
{¶ 7} Worden filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for
consideration. She raises one assignment of error as follows:
I
{¶ 8} "THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN IMPOSING
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ON APPELLANT, BECAUSE ITS FINDINGS UNDER R.C.
2929.14(C)(4) WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD."
{¶ 9} In her sole assignment of error, Worden argues the trial court's imposition
of consecutive sentences per R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) is not supported by the record. We
disagree.
Applicable Law
{¶ 10} This court reviews felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in
R.C. 2953.08. State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002 ¶ 22; State v. Howell, 2015-Ohio-4049,
¶ 31 (5th Dist.). Subsection (G)(2) sets forth this court's standard of review as follows:
(2) 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 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.
{¶ 11} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) governs consecutive sentences. That section states:
(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for
convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender
to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the
consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future
crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are
not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and
to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also
finds any of the following:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses
while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a
sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18
of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior
offense.
(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of
one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more
of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that
no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any
of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the
offender's conduct.
(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime by the offender.
{¶ 12} In Ohio, there is a presumption a court will impose concurrent sentences.
State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 16; R.C. 2929.41(A). This presumption is overcome
when the trial court makes the consecutive sentencing findings described in R.C.
2929.14(C)(4). "R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to a trial court's
consecutive-sentence findings, and the trial court's findings must be upheld unless those
findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record." State v. Gwynne,
2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 5, 231 N.E.3d 1109. "Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or
degree of proof which is more than a mere 'preponderance of the evidence,' but not to the
extent of such certainty as is required 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and
which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the
facts sought to be established." Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469(1954), paragraph three
of the syllabus.
{¶ 13} When imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court must state the required
findings at the sentencing hearing. State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 29. Because a
court speaks through its journal, the court should also incorporate its statutory findings
into the sentencing entry. Id. However, a word-for-word recitation of the language of the
statute is not required. Id. As long as the reviewing court can discern the trial court
engaged in the correct analysis and can determine the record contains evidence to support
the findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld. Id.
Worden's Sentence is Supported by the Record
{¶ 14} We first note Worden did not object during the sentencing hearing to the
imposition of consecutive sentences, thereby forfeiting all but plain error. State v. Wilson,
2013-Ohio-1520 (10th Dist.) ¶ 8. An error not raised in the trial court must be plain error for an appellate court to reverse. State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978) at paragraph one
of the syllabus; Crim.R. 52(B). In order to prevail under a plain error analysis, appellant
bears the burden of demonstrating that the outcome of the proceeding clearly would have
been different but for the error. Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. Notice of plain error
"is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to
prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice." Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶ 15} Upon review of the record, we find no error plain or otherwise. We find the
trial court engaged in the correct analysis. It found consecutive sentences were not
disproportionate to the seriousness of Worden's conduct, the danger she poses to the
public, and the fact that at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of
one or more courses of conduct and the harm caused was so great or unusual that no
single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of the course of conduct
adequately reflects the seriousness of the offense. Transcript of sentencing (T.) 26-27.
{¶ 16} Worden does not dispute that the trial court made the required findings
pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) both on the record and in its sentencing entry. Rather
she disagrees with the court's findings. She argues she had no prior felony record, a
relatively limited misdemeanor record, and therefore consecutive sentences were not
required to protect the public from future crime. This court may not, however, weigh the
evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning
a sentence that best reflects compliance with the overriding purposes of felony
sentencing. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, paragraph one of the syllabus. We may not
make a "freestanding inquiry" regarding whether a felony sentence is appropriate. Id. at
¶ 42.
{¶ 17} Upon review of the record we further find it contains ample evidence to
support the trial court's consecutive sentence findings. While Worden argues she had no
prior felony record, she in fact committed numerous felony offenses within a five-month
period in two separate cases. She also argues consecutive sentences are not appropriate
because she did not personally shoot the victim in the 2025 case, and presents no danger
to the public. Worden appears to ignore that she not only orchestrated the entire
shooting event, but she also seriously injured and permanently maimed an innocent man
while attempting to mete out vigilante justice.
{¶ 18} Worden's arguments are without merit. Accordingly, the sole assignment of
error is overruled.
{¶ 19} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
By: King, J.
Baldwin, P.J. and
Gormley, J. concur.