[Cite as State v. Malloy, 2026-Ohio-3393.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2026-A-0006
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
TIMOTHY C. MALLOY,
Trial Court No. 2025 CR 00017
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: August 31, 2026
Judgment: Affirmed
April R. Grabman, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Dane R. Hixon, Assistant Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Margaret Brunarski, Ashtabula County Public Defender; Tia N. Jackson and Phillip L. Heasley, Assistant Public Defenders, Ashtabula County Public Defender’s Office, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Timothy C. Malloy, appeals the December 15, 2025 entry of the
Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to serve 10 months in prison
following his negotiated plea of guilty to one count of Receiving Stolen Property. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
{¶2} Malloy was initially indicted on two counts of Receiving Stolen Property, in
violation of R.C. 2913.51(A) and (C), pertaining to a motor vehicle (Count One) and a
debit card (Count Two). On November 20, 2025, pursuant to a plea agreement, Malloy
pleaded guilty to Count Two, a fifth-degree felony, and the State dismissed Count One, a fourth-degree felony. The written plea agreement, signed by Malloy, states, “I understand
that any recommendation of sentence to the Court by the State is not binding in any way
on the Court and that any sentence to be imposed is in the sole discretion of the Court.”
At the plea hearing, the prosecutor told the court that the State had agreed to make a
community control recommendation at sentencing. The court later asked Malloy, “Do you
understand that the Court is not bound to any agreed sentence between you and the
State of Ohio?” Malloy responded, “Yes, ma’am.”
{¶3} On December 15, 2025, following a presentence investigation, the trial court
held a sentencing hearing. Defense counsel asked the court to follow through with the
parties’ joint recommendation for community control, and the prosecutor maintained that
the State would abide by the terms of the agreement. The court reviewed the presentence
report, outlining Malloy’s lengthy history of prior convictions and probation violations. The
court stated it had considered the purposes and principles of the sentencing statutes,
including the overriding purposes of punishing the offender and protecting the public from
future crime. As it relates to the recidivism and seriousness factors, the court found that
Malloy has a substantial prior criminal record, a history of criminal convictions and
probation violations, has not been law abiding for several years, and committed the
instant offense while on post-release control or parole in a prior case. For these reasons,
despite the low-level felony in this case, the court stated it could not follow the joint
recommendation for community control. The court found community control “would
demean the seriousness of the conduct in this case and its impact upon the victim and
would not adequately protect the public. Therefore, a sentence of imprisonment is
commensurate with the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and a prison sentence
PAGE 2 OF 7
Case No. 2026-A-0006
does not place an unnecessary burden on the State and promotes rehabilitation.” The
court then sentenced Malloy to a nonmandatory prison term of 10 months, with credit for
time served.
{¶4} The sentencing entry was journalized on December 15, 2025. The court
stated therein that it had considered the record, information presented by or on behalf of
Malloy and the prosecuting attorney, any victim information provided by the State, and
Malloy’s ability to pay financial sanctions, as well as the purposes and principles of
sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism sentencing factors. This appeal followed.
{¶5} Malloy raises one assignment of error for our review:
{¶6} “The trial court erred by exceeding its discretion in sentencing defendant.”
{¶7} Our standard of review for felony sentencing is found in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2):
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.
{¶8} Our jurisdiction to review the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12 is limited under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b). State v. Brunson, 2022-Ohio-4299, ¶ 69.
“Under that provision, the appellate court cannot modify or vacate a sentence based on
its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and
2929.12.” Id., citing State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39. “Nothing in R.C.
PAGE 3 OF 7
Case No. 2026-A-0006
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.” Jones at ¶ 42.
{¶9} “When sentencing, a ‘trial court is not required to give any particular weight
or emphasis to a given set of circumstances; it is merely required to consider the statutory
factors in exercising its discretion.’ State v. Delmanzo, 2008-Ohio-5856, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.).
A sentencing court fulfills its duty when it states that it has considered the factors under
R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. State v. DeLuca, 2021-Ohio-1007, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.).”
State v. Hackathorn, 2023-Ohio-410, ¶ 8 (11th Dist.).
{¶10} In support of his assignment of error, Malloy contends that the trial court
disregarded the clear agreement between the parties for a sentence of community control
and disregarded the clear mandates of R.C. 2929.11 when it imposed a 10-month prison
sentence. Malloy argues that the court merely recited statutory language and never
indicated specifically why the public needed protection from him or why the goal of
effective rehabilitation could not have been achieved through the less-restrictive sanction
of community control.
{¶11} However, we are without any authority to independently weigh mitigating
factors under R.C. 2929.12, Jones at ¶ 42, and the trial court fulfilled its duty in this regard
by stating at the sentencing hearing and in its sentencing entry that it had considered all
factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. See Hackathorn at ¶ 14. Accord State v. Pace,
2025-Ohio-5291, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.). The court specifically noted Malloy’s lengthy criminal
history and probation violations, as well as the fact that he committed the present offense
PAGE 4 OF 7
Case No. 2026-A-0006
while on post-release control in a prior case. On balance, the court found that Malloy was
not amenable to a community control sanction in this case.
{¶12} Moreover, it is well established that “trial courts may reject plea agreements
and that they are not bound by a jointly recommended sentence.” State v. Underwood,
2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 28. “‘A trial court does not err by imposing a sentence greater than “that
forming the inducement for the defendant to plead guilty when the trial court forewarns
the defendant of the applicable penalties, including the possibility of imposing a greater
sentence than that recommended by the prosecutor.”’” State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey,
2005-Ohio-3674, ¶ 6, quoting State v. Buchanan, 2003-Ohio-4772, ¶ 13 (5th Dist.),
quoting State v. Pettiford, 2002 WL 652371, *3 (12th Dist. Apr. 22, 2002). Accord State
v. Butler, 2026-Ohio-318, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.).
{¶13} Malloy signed a Written Plea of Guilty that expressly states, “I understand
that any recommendation of sentence to the Court by the State is not binding in any way
on the Court and that any sentence to be imposed is in the sole discretion of the Court.”
At the plea hearing, the trial court asked Malloy, “Do you understand that the Court is not
bound to any agreed sentence between you and the State of Ohio?” Malloy answered,
“Yes, ma’am.” Thus, nothing in this record supports the conclusion that Malloy was not
sufficiently made aware that the parties’ joint sentencing recommendation was not binding
upon the court.
{¶14} The trial court was under no obligation to follow the joint sentencing
recommendation, and we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial court in its
application of the sentencing factors. Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is
without merit.
PAGE 5 OF 7
Case No. 2026-A-0006
{¶15} The judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,
concur.
PAGE 6 OF 7
Case No. 2026-A-0006
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s assignment of error
is without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the
Ashtabula 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 7 OF 7
Case No. 2026-A-0006