[Cite as State v. Colwell, 2026-Ohio-3036.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO Case No. 26 CAA 02 0011
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion and Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Delaware County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 25 CRI 10 0660
DANNY LEE COLWELL
Judgment: Affirmed
Defendant - Appellant
Date of Judgment Entry: August 6, 2026
BEFORE: William B. Hoffman; Robert G. Montgomery; Kevin W. Popham, Judges
APPEARANCES: Melissa A. Schiffel, Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney, Katheryn L. Munger, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Jonathan W. Klein, for Defendant-Appellant.
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Danny Lee Colwell appeals his sentence entered in the
Delaware County Common Pleas Court on one count of Domestic Violence, following a
guilty plea. Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On October 5, 2025, Delaware County Sheriff Deputies were dispatched in
response to a reported domestic disturbance. The caller reported to dispatch her
"granddaughter and boyfriend are in it" and the male, later identified as Appellant Danny Lee Colwell, had left the area on foot. The caller stated Appellant was not wearing a shirt. When
deputies arrived in the area, a shirtless male was observed standing outside the residence
smoking a cigarette. Appellant stated his girlfriend M.M. had "attacked him" and held a knife
blade to his throat.
{¶3} M.M. informed deputies Appellant had confronted her and demanded she refer
to him as "alpha" and when she refused, he physically tackled her to the ground. M.M.
reported Appellant placed one hand around her throat and the other hand at the back of her
neck, causing her to have difficulty breathing during the attack. Appellant also threw her to
the ground and tackled her repeatedly. M.M. was noted to have bruising developing under
her left eye.
{¶4} M.M. stated she got away and retreated into the house, but Appellant forced
his way inside, grabbed her by her neck, and shoved her into a wall. M.M. then called out to
her mother for help.
{¶5} Appellant told deputies he and M.M. were only "playfighting". He accused her
of "acting like the big dog or alpha dog" and said the two got into a wrestling match. Appellant
told the deputies he disarmed her from holding a knife and admitted he grabbed her by her
neck and placed her in a chokehold in self-defense.
{¶6} On October 9, 2025, the Delaware County Grand Jury returned an Indictment,
charging Appellant with the following: Count One: Strangulation, in violation of R.C.
2903.18(B)(2), a third-degree felony, Count Two: Strangulation, in violation of R.C.
2903.18(B)(3), a fourth-degree felony, and Count Three: Domestic Violence, in violation of
R.C. 2919.25(A), a fourth-degree felony.
{¶7} On December 10, 2025, Appellant entered a written plea of guilty to Count
Three of the Indictment. Counts One and Two were dismissed pursuant to negotiations.
Sentencing was continued to allow for the completion of a Pre-Sentence Investigation.
{¶8} On January 12, 2026, at the sentencing hearing, the State referred to the
dismissed allegations and asked the trial court to consider them as part of a broader pattern
of behavior. (T. at 4–5). The prosecutor acknowledged several of the allegations did not result
in convictions but argued these allegations demonstrated a pattern and supported a prison
sentence. (T. at 5).
{¶9} Defense counsel presented mitigation, explaining Appellant struggles with
substance abuse and mental health issues, and suggested options for treatment and
rehabilitation. Counsel emphasized structured treatment and supervision would better serve
the purposes of sentencing than incarceration. (T. at 7–9).
{¶10} The trial court sentenced Appellant to fourteen (14) months in prison, with
credit for 100 days served. (See 1/14/2026 Judgment Entry of Prison Sentence).
{¶11} It is from the January 14, 2026, Judgment Entry Appellant now appeals,
assigning the following errors for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
I. The trial court’s sentence is contrary to law because it failed to
properly apply R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.
II. The trial court’s sentence is contrary to law because it relied on
dismissed and unproven allegations.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
{¶12} As both of Appellant’s assignments of error contend his sentence was contrary
to law, we shall address them together.
{¶13} Appellant argues the trial court did not meaningfully apply R.C. §2929.11 and
§2929.12, claiming the court focused almost entirely on punishment and the risk of
reoffending and giving little attention to mitigation. Appellant further argues the trial court
improperly relied upon unproven allegations.
Standard of Appellate Review
{¶14} We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.
2953.08. State v. Roberts, 2020-Ohio-6722, ¶ 13 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio1002. R.C. §2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a
sentence and remand for sentencing where we clearly and convincingly find either the record
does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. §2929.13(B) or (D),
§2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or §2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Id.,
citing State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659.
{¶15} A sentence is "otherwise contrary to law" when it violates a statute or legal
regulation. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 34, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990).
Thus, a sentence imposed based on factors or considerations beyond those permitted by R.C.
§2929.11 and §2929.12 is contrary to law. State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 22.
{¶16} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes and
principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. §2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism
factors in R.C. §2929.12. State v. Hodges, 2013-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.).
{¶17} "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." R.C. §2929.11(A). To achieve these purposes, the sentencing court
shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from
future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense,
the public, or both. Id. Further, the sentence imposed shall be "commensurate with and not
demeaning to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and its impact on the victim, and
consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes by similar offenders." R.C. §2929.11(B).
{¶18} R.C. §2929.12 lists general factors which must be considered by the trial court
in determining the sentence to be imposed for a felony and gives detailed criteria which do
not control the court's discretion, but which must be considered for or against severity or
leniency in a particular case. The trial court retains discretion to determine the most effective
way to comply with the purpose and principles of sentencing as set forth in R.C. §2929.11.
{¶19} Nothing in R.C. §2953.08(G)(2) permits this Court to independently weigh the
evidence in the record and substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court to determine
a sentence which best reflects compliance with R.C. §2929.11 and R.C. §2929.12. State v.
Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42. Instead, we may only determine if the sentence is contrary to
law.
{¶20} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court
"considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the
permissible statutory range." State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512, ¶¶ 14-16 (5th Dist.).
{¶21} Initially, we find the fourteen-month prison sentence imposed is within the
statutory range.
{¶22} At the sentencing hearing and in its Judgment Entry of Prison Sentence, the
trial court stated it considered the principles and purposes of R.C. §2929.11, and the factors
listed in R.C. §2929.12. The court considered Appellant’s lengthy criminal history and his
numerous violations of community control sanctions resulting in termination and the
imposition of jail sentences. (Sent. T. at 15-18). The court specifically stated it found the
violation of treatment in lieu troubling and noted it was also the most recent interaction
Appellant had with the criminal justice system. (Sent. T. at 18). The court considered the
seriousness of the crime, that it was a crime of violence, and the victim suffered physical harm.
(Sent. T. at 18, 19). The court also considered Appellant’s very high score for recidivism (a
score of 8) on the Ohio Domestic Violence Assessment. The court found Appellant has
demonstrated a pattern of drug abuse with a refusal to acknowledge the problem and refused
treatment. (Sent. T. at 19). The court acknowledged Appellant showed remorse at the
sentencing hearing but failed to show remorse in the PSI. Id. The court also stated it found
Appellant was “not amenable to community control and that a prison term is necessary to
protect the public and a non-prison term would demean the seriousness of [Appellant’s]
conduct.” (Sent. T. at 21).
{¶23} Appellant also argues the trial court improperly “relied on allegations that were
never proven”. In support, Appellant cites this Court’s decision in State v. Davis, 2022-Ohio2123, ¶ 17 (5th Dist.) for the proposition the court should not sentence based on unproven conduct. (Appellant's Brief at 4). In State v. Davis, the trial court considered and placed great
weight on an allegation Davis had failed to follow probation orders to enter into domestic
violence counseling. However, Davis had never been charged or had a violation for failure to
enter domestic violence counseling. Davis had no knowledge of said allegation or notice to
defend against the same.
{¶24} Here, we find the trial court properly considered Appellant’s past criminal
history, as set forth in the PSI, which included convictions for theft in 2007, possession of
drugs in 2007, possession of drug paraphernalia in 2008, unauthorized use of a vehicle in
2010, having weapons while intoxicated in 2010, aggravated menacing in 2015, possession of
marijuana in 2020, OVI in 2020, a violation of a protection order in 2023, and he was found
in violation of community control numerous times and was unsuccessfully terminated more
than once. (Sent. T. at 4-5, 8-9, 16-17).
{¶25} Appellant had first-hand knowledge of his own criminal history as well as prior
notice of what was contained in the PSI.
{¶26} Based on the foregoing, we find Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law.
Appellant’s assignments of error are overruled.
{¶27} The judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
{¶28} Costs to Appellant.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Montgomery, J. and
Popham, J. concur.