[Cite as State v. Lewis, 2026-Ohio-3399.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TRUMBULL COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2026-T-0006
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
RODERICK L. LEWIS,
Trial Court No. 2025 CR 00090
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: August 31, 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).
Martin Yavorcik, 940 Windham Court, Suite 7, Youngstown, OH 44512 (For DefendantAppellant).
MATT LYNCH, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Roderick L. Lewis, appeals from the final judgment of conviction
and sentence entered by the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. Lewis challenges
the denial of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds and the imposition of
consecutive sentences. We affirm.
{¶2} A grand jury indicted Lewis on one count of Aggravated Possession of
Drugs (methamphetamine), in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) & (C)(1)(a), and one count of
Possession of Drugs (cocaine), in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) & (C)(4)(a), both fifthdegree felonies. Lewis initially pleaded not guilty but later entered a plea of no contest to the Indictment. The trial court accepted the plea and found Lewis guilty. Following a
presentence investigation, the court sentenced Lewis to the maximum prison term of 12
months on each count, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate term of 24 months.
{¶3} Lewis now appeals, raising three assignments of error for review.
Speedy Trial
{¶4} As his first assignment of error, Lewis contends the trial court erred in
denying his motion to dismiss under R.C. 2941.401, thereby violating his statutory right
to a speedy trial and losing jurisdiction over his case as a result.
{¶5} “R.C. 2941.401 delineates how an Ohio prisoner is to enforce his
constitutional right to a speedy trial on an untried indictment.” State v. Williams, 2023-Ohio-3647, ¶ 1. If a speedy trial violation under R.C. 2941.401 occurs, then a trial court
has no further jurisdiction over the matter. State v. Dillon, 2007-Ohio-3617, ¶ 23. We
review alleged speedy trial violations under R.C. 2941.401 de novo. See Williams at ¶ 8.
{¶6} R.C. 2941.401 provides, in relevant part:
When a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a correctional
institution of this state, and when during the continuance of the term of
imprisonment there is pending in this state any untried indictment,
information, or complaint against the prisoner, the prisoner shall be brought
to trial within one hundred eighty days after the prisoner causes to be
delivered to the prosecuting attorney and the appropriate court in which the
matter is pending, written notice of the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment
and a request for a final disposition to be made of the matter, except that
for good cause shown in open court, with the prisoner or the prisoner’s
counsel present, the court may grant any necessary or reasonable
continuance. The request of the prisoner shall be accompanied by a
certificate of the warden or superintendent having custody of the prisoner,
stating the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the
time served and remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of
good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any
decisions of the adult parole authority relating to the prisoner.
PAGE 2 OF 10
Case No. 2026-T-0006
The written notice and request for final disposition shall be given or sent by
the prisoner to the warden or superintendent having custody of the prisoner,
who shall promptly forward it with the certificate to the appropriate
prosecuting attorney and court by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested. If the appropriate prosecuting attorney and agency having
custody of the prisoner have previously agreed, then the written notice,
request, and certificate may be sent by electronic mail or facsimile, in lieu
of registered mail or certified mail.
If the action is not brought to trial within the time provided, subject to
continuance allowed pursuant to this section, no court any longer has
jurisdiction thereof, the indictment, information, or complaint is void, and the
court shall enter an order dismissing the action with prejudice.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶7} “In its plainest language, R.C. 2941.401 grants an incarcerated defendant
a chance to have all pending charges resolved in a timely manner, thereby preventing the
state from delaying prosecution until after the defendant has been released from his
prison term.” State v. Hairston, 2004-Ohio-969, ¶ 25. “The statute triggers the 180-day
speedy-trial clock to start running when the prisoner ‘causes to be delivered’ to the
prosecuting attorney and the appropriate court a written notice of the place of his
imprisonment and a request for a final disposition of the pending matter.” Williams at ¶ 1.
“A prisoner satisfies the ‘causes to be delivered’ requirement in R.C. 2941.401 by
providing written notice of the place of his imprisonment and a request for final disposition
to the warden of the institution where he is incarcerated.” Id. at ¶ 18. The prisoner’s
compliance with R.C. 2941.401 triggers the warden’s statutory duty to promptly forward
the notice and request, along with the certificate of the warden or superintendent having
custody of the prisoner, to the appropriate prosecuting attorney and court by registered
or certified mail. Id. at ¶ 17.
PAGE 3 OF 10
Case No. 2026-T-0006
{¶8} When a warden fails to act as prescribed under R.C. 2941.401, “whether
intentionally, inadvertently, or otherwise, the consequences of that failure should inure to
the state, on whose behalf the warden acts.” Id. On the other hand, “‘[w]here the inmate
forwards incomplete, inaccurate, misleading or erroneous information, any subsequent
errors by the warden or superintendent will be imputed to the inmate.’” State v. Colon,
2010-Ohio-2326, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Gill, 2004-Ohio-1245, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.).
Accord State v. Jarvis, 2023-Ohio-4229, ¶ 6 (9th Dist.).
{¶9} In his motion to dismiss, filed May 7, 2025, Lewis alleged that he “was in
the custody of the Trumbull County Sheriff awaiting a preliminary hearing on the present
case when he was transported to Lorain Correctional Institution” and that he “requested
that notices of availability be filed upon his arrival in ODRC custody, as can be seen in
the notice that was actually delivered to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.”
Lewis claimed that the “180-day time for bringing the case to trial expired between
October 20 and October 23, 2024.”
{¶10} Attached to Lewis’s motion are two unverified and unattested exhibits.
“Exhibit A” includes the following: (1) a letter on ODRC letterhead dated April 23, 2024,
addressed to “prosecuting attorney” and signed by “T Rosales, Record Office,” advising
that Lewis is imprisoned on “Trumbull 2023CR682” and requesting early disposition of
case No. 23CR5450; (2) “Notice of Untried Indictments, Information or Complaint and of
Rights to Request Disposition,” notifying Lewis that he has a detainer in case No.
23CR5450, signed by Lewis on April 26, 2024, and requesting early disposition under
R.C. 2941.401; (3) “Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Request for Disposition of
Indictments, Information or Complaints,” addressed to Franklin County Common Pleas
PAGE 4 OF 10
Case No. 2026-T-0006
Prosecuting Attorney, signed by Lewis on April 26, 2024, and requesting final disposition
be made for case No. 23CR5450. “Exhibit B” includes an undated “Notice to Offender,”
informing Lewis that he has an active warrant with the Trumbull County Sheriff in Warren
Municipal Court case No. 23CRA002345. (This case was subsequently bound over to
the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas and assigned case No. 2025 CR 00090,
which is the subject of the instant appeal.)
{¶11} The trial court overruled Lewis’s motion to dismiss, finding Lewis did not
comply with the procedure set forth in R.C. 2941.401. Upon de novo review, we agree
with the State’s position that the exhibits submitted with Lewis’s motion reveal that he did
not “cause to be delivered” his written notice and request for final disposition in this case.
{¶12} Notably absent from Lewis’s motion to dismiss is any written notice of the
place of his imprisonment and any request for final disposition to the warden of the
institution where he was incarcerated that includes the case number of the Trumbull
County case at issue here (i.e., Common Pleas case No. 2025 CR 00090 or Warren
Municipal case No. 23CRA002345). The exhibits submitted in support of Lewis’s motion
to dismiss reflect that he only submitted a request for final disposition of the Franklin
County Case. Lewis’s failure to request final disposition of this case is imputed to him,
not the warden, and the speedy trial clock in this case never started for purposes of R.C.
2941.401. See Jarvis, 2023-Ohio-4229, at ¶ 10 (9th Dist.); Colon, 2010-Ohio-2326, at
¶ 23 (5th Dist.); Gill, 2004-Ohio-1245, at ¶ 17 (8th Dist.). Consequently, this case is
distinguishable from Williams, 2023-Ohio-3647, where the defendant “satisfied his every
obligation under” R.C. 2941.401, and from Dillon, 2007-Ohio-3617 (cited by appellant in
PAGE 5 OF 10
Case No. 2026-T-0006
support of his assignment of error), where the warden initially failed to deliver the
indictment and notice to the defendant.
{¶13} Lewis’s first assignment of error is without merit.
Consecutive Sentences
{¶14} In his second assignment of error, Lewis contends the trial court’s
imposition of consecutive sentences is unsupported by the record. In his third assignment
of error, Lewis contends the trial court imposed a sentence contrary to law.
{¶15} “Under Ohio’s statutory sentencing scheme, there is a presumption that a
defendant’s multiple prison sentences will be served concurrently, R.C. 2929.41(A),
unless certain circumstances not applicable in this case apply, see, e.g., R.C.
2929.14(C)(1) through (3), or the trial court makes findings supporting the imposition of
consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).” State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-1083,
¶ 11. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides:
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 [R.C. 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18], 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.
PAGE 6 OF 10
Case No. 2026-T-0006
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive
sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the
offender.
“Though ‘a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at
the sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, . . . it has no
obligation to state reasons to support its findings. Nor is it required to give a talismanic
incantation of the words of the statute, provided that the necessary findings can be found
in the record and are incorporated into the sentencing entry.’” Jones at ¶ 11, quoting
State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 37.
{¶16} R.C. 2953.08(G) instructs appellate courts reviewing the imposition of
consecutive sentences as follows:
(2) The court hearing an appeal under [R.C. 2953.08(A), (B), or (C)] 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
[R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)];
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
“R.C. 2953.08(F) requires an appellate court to review the entire trial-court record,
including any oral or written statements made to or by the trial court at the sentencing
hearing, and any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was
submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed. R.C. 2953.08(F)(1)
through (4).” Jones at ¶ 12.
PAGE 7 OF 10
Case No. 2026-T-0006
{¶17} “The standard to be applied is the standard set forth in the statute: an
appellate court has the authority to increase, reduce, otherwise modify, or vacate a
sentence only after it has reviewed the entire trial-court record and ‘clearly and
convincingly f[ound] either . . . [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court’s
findings under [certain statutes]’ or ‘[t]hat the sentence is otherwise contrary to law,’ R.C.
2953.08(G)(2).” Id. at ¶ 13; see also State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 22.
{¶18} Here, the transcript of Lewis’s sentencing hearing clearly shows that the
trial court made the findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences, and Lewis has
not demonstrated that those findings were not supported by the record. As noted by the
trial court, “The Defendant has an extensive criminal history of arrests and convictions.
The Defendant has eleven prior felony convictions. The Defendant has served eleven
prior prison sentences based on those felony convictions. And he was rejected by
NEOCAP and is at a high risk to re-offend. The Defendant was on probation when the
instant offense was committed.” The trial court specifically found that “consecutive
sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime 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.” In addition, the trial court explicitly stated
that Lewis’s “history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are
necessary to protect the public from future crime by him.”
{¶19} At sentencing, Lewis’s counsel recounted his history of drug addiction and
requested community control sanctions. On appeal, Lewis notes the instant offenses
involved small quantities of narcotics and caused no harm to any victim. However, the
trial court made the findings necessary for the discretionary imposition of consecutive
PAGE 8 OF 10
Case No. 2026-T-0006
prison sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and those findings are not clearly and
convincingly unsupported by the record, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), and are memorialized in the
sentencing entry. Moreover, the imposed sentence was within the statutory range for
fifth-degree felonies, R.C. 2929.14(A)(5), and the trial court expressly considered the
purposes and principles of felony sentencing, including the relevant seriousness and
recidivism factors.
{¶20} Lewis’s second and third assignments of error are without merit.
{¶21} The judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,
concur.
PAGE 9 OF 10
Case No. 2026-T-0006
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.
PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,
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 10 OF 10
Case No. 2026-T-0006