[Cite as State v. Doucette, 2026-Ohio-2426.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CLARK COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: C.A. No. 2025-CA-67
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 25-CR-395
v. :
: (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
BLAKE DOUCETTE : Court)
:
Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on June 26, 2026, the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
RONALD C. LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE
HUFFMAN, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
OPINION
CLARK C.A. No. 2025-CA-67
ADAM J. ARNOLD, Attorney for Appellant
JOHN M. LINTZ, Attorney for Appellee
LEWIS, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Blake Doucette appeals from his conviction in the Clark
County Common Pleas Court following a guilty plea. For the following reasons, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
I. Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On May 20, 2025, Doucette was indicted by a Clark County grand jury on one
count of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, a third-degree felony in
violation of R.C. 2921.331(B), and one count of receiving stolen property, a fourth-degree
felony in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A). Doucette pleaded not guilty to the two charges.
{¶ 3} The State filed a bill of particulars in which it described the police officer’s pursuit
of a stolen vehicle driven by Doucette on May 13, 2025. According to the bill of particulars,
Doucette drove at a high speed through a school zone, the pursuit continued through several
streets reaching speeds of 80 mph, he “continued to drive recklessly driving the wrong way
on a south bound lane, sped through a construction zone with workers present, and
eventually crashed into a red Chevrolet Camero in an intersection.”
{¶ 4} On August 4, 2025, Doucette withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of
guilty to one count of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. The written
plea form signed by Doucette alerted him that he could receive up to a maximum prison
sentence of 60 months, up to a $10,000 fine, and a license suspension of 3 years to life.
The trial court reiterated the potential sentences during the plea hearing and stated that a
2
license suspension was mandatory. Following the plea colloquy, the trial court found him
guilty of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and dismissed the one
count of receiving stolen property. The trial court ordered the preparation of a presentence
investigation (“PSI”) prior to sentencing.
{¶ 5} On August 19, 2025, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The State asked
the trial court to impose the maximum sentence based on the dangerous pursuit caused by
Doucette’s actions and his extensive criminal history. Defense counsel presented his case
for the imposition of a lighter sentence, and Doucette expressed his remorse. The court
stated that it had considered the purposes of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the
factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12, and it sentenced Doucette to 60 months in prison and
suspended his driver’s license for 25 years. Doucette was ordered to pay court costs, but
no fine was imposed. Doucette filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. The Trial Court’s Imposition of a 25-Year Driver’s License Suspension Is Not
Contrary to Law
{¶ 6} Doucette’s first assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPOSING A TWENTY-FIVE-YEAR
DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION WITHOUT ARTICULATING A
SUFFICIENT RATIONALE FOR SUCH AN EXTRAORDINARY
DISCRETIONARY SANCTION.
{¶ 7} In reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standard of
review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 22. Under
this statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or it
may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, only if it “clearly and convincingly”
finds either: (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the
3
sentence imposed is otherwise contrary to law. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Doucette does not
identify any statutory findings that needed to be made prior to the trial court’s imposition of
a 25-year driver’s license suspension. Therefore, we limit our analysis to whether the
driver’s license suspension imposed by the trial court is clearly and convincingly contrary to
law. “A sentence is contrary to law when it falls outside the statutory range for the offense
or if the sentencing court does not consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Bartley,
2023-Ohio-2325, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 8} Pursuant to R.C. 2921.331(E), the trial court was required to impose a classtwo driver’s license suspension within the range provided under R.C. 4510.02(A)(2) as part
of Doucette’s sentence for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. The
authorized range for the mandatory license suspension is a definite period of three years to
life. R.C. 4510.02(A)(2). The 25-year driver’s license suspension imposed by the trial
court is within this authorized statutory range. Moreover, prior to imposing this suspension,
the trial court stated that it had considered the purposes and principles of sentencing set
forth in R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors in R.C. 2929.12. “‘[A] sentence is not contrary
to law when the trial court imposes a sentence within the statutory range, after expressly
stating that it had considered the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C.
2929.11, as well as the factors in R.C. 2929.12.’” State v. Frazier, 2015-Ohio-344, ¶ 10
(2d Dist.), quoting State v. Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759, ¶ 32 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 9} The first assignment of error is overruled.
III. Doucette’s Maximum Prison Sentence Is Not Contrary to Law
{¶ 10} Doucette’s second assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT’S IMPOSITION OF A MAXIMUM PRISON TERM, WHEN
COUPLED WITH A 25-YEAR LICENSE SUSPENSION, WAS CONTRARY
4
TO R.C. 2929.11 MINIMUM SANCTIONS PRINCIPLE.
{¶ 11} R.C. 2929.11(A) provides, in relevant part: “The overriding purposes of felony
sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others, to punish
the offender, and to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum
sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an
unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.” (Emphasis added.)
Doucette concedes that the trial court was not required to make express findings or use
specific language when determining the minimum sanctions to accomplish the purposes of
felony sentencing. But Doucette contends that “the absence of any articulated reasoning
addressing the cumulative severity of the sanctions imposed demonstrates that the court did
not meaningfully apply R.C. 2929.11(A)’s ‘minimum sanctions’ principle.” Appellant’s Brief,
p. 12. Doucette states that he is not requesting us “to reweigh seriousness or recidivism
factors or to determine that a lesser prison term would have been preferable.” Id. at 13.
Rather, Doucette “asks only that the sentencing court be required to demonstrate, on the
record, that it applied the governing statutory directive to the full scope of punishment
imposed.” Id. at 13-14. Therefore, Doucette requests us to “remand for resentencing so
the trial court may exercise its discretion within the statutory framework and articulate its
reasoning accordingly.” Id. at 14.
{¶ 12} Doucette was convicted of a third-degree felony in violation of
R.C. 2921.331(B). He received a maximum prison sentence of 60 months, which is within
the authorized statutory range. R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a). At the sentencing hearing, the trial
court discussed much of Doucette’s lengthy criminal history. The court then stated that it
had considered the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, as well
as the factors in R.C. 2929.12. The court noted that it had considered the minimum
5
sanctions that it could impose to accomplish the purposes of felony sentencing set forth in
R.C. 2929.11 without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government
resources. Although it was not required to explain why it imposed a maximum prison
sentence, the court stated:
The Court finds that based on all of these factors that this is the most serious
form of the offense. The Court finds that the Defendant has a history of
criminal convictions, and has not responded favorably to sanctions previously
imposed. And the Court finds the Defendant has previously been sent to
West Central, had multiple community control violations, and three prior prison
terms imposed. The Court finds the Defendant was on community control at
the time of the offense. His ORAS is high, a 27.
Sentencing Tr. 16.
{¶ 13} In its judgment entry, the trial court stated that it had reviewed the PSI prior to
sentencing, as well as the record, oral statements of counsel, the defendant’s statement,
the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, and the factors set forth
in R.C. 2929.12. The court concluded that “this is the most serious form of the offense.”
{¶ 14} “The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized
statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for
imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v. King, 2013-Ohio-2021,
¶ 45 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856, paragraph seven of the syllabus.
Therefore, “when making a felony sentencing decision, a trial court must consider the
R.C. 2929.11 purposes of felony sentencing and the R.C. 2929.12 felony sentencing factors,
but there is no requirement for the trial court to make any on-the-record findings regarding
R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Benedict, 2021-Ohio-966, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.). “It is
6
enough that the record demonstrates that the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and
R.C. 2929.12 prior to imposing its sentence.” State v. Trent, 2021-Ohio-3698, ¶ 15
(2d Dist.). The record establishes that the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12
before imposing its sentence. Doucette has failed to establish that his maximum prison
sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Therefore, there is no reason to
remand the matter to the trial court.
{¶ 15} The second assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 16} Having overruled the assignments of error, the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
7