[Cite as State v. Efford, 2026-Ohio-3574.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2025-A-0063
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
LINDA EFFORD,
Trial Court No. 2025 CR 00253
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: September 14, 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, and Edith M. Jonas, Assistant Public Defender, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For DefendantAppellant).
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Linda Efford, appeals the judgment imposing sentence following
her guilty plea to one charge of attempted assault and one charge of operating a vehicle
under the influence of alcohol or drugs (“OVI”). We affirm.
{¶2} Following a traffic stop in 2025, Efford was charged by indictment with two
counts of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse (“OVI”),
the first count being in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (G)(1)(e), a felony of the
third degree, and the second count being in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(b) and (G)(1)(d), a felony of the fourth degree; and assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A) and
(C)(5)(a), a felony of the fourth degree.
{¶3} Following plea negotiations, Efford pleaded guilty to an amended count of
attempted assault, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2903.13(A) and (C)(5)(a), a felony of
the fifth degree; and to the fourth-degree felony OVI as originally charged. The State
agreed to dismiss the remaining OVI count. The trial court accepted Efford’s plea, ordered
a presentence investigation report, and set the matter for sentencing.
{¶4} At sentencing, the trial court sentenced Efford to ten months in prison on
the attempted assault count and 24 months in prison on the OVI count, to be served
consecutively, for a total prison term of 34 months. Efford timely noticed an appeal, and
she now assigns one error for our review.
{¶5} In her sole assigned error, Efford contends:
{¶6} “The trial judge erred by imposing 1[0] months on Count 2 and 24 months
on Count 3 prison sentence to be run consecutively because the trial court did not make
the requisite findings supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences as outlined in
R.C. 2929.14.”
{¶7} This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). That
subdivision provides, in pertinent part:
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
PAGE 2 OF 6
Case No. 2025-A-0063
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 . . . (C)(4) of section 2929.14[,
(regarding consecutive sentences)] . . . ;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶8} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a sentencing court may order consecutive
service of multiple sentences if it finds (1) it is necessary to protect the public from future
crime or to punish the offender; (2) consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public;
and (3) any of the factors in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) are present. Those factors include,
as relevant here, that “[t]he offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the
offender.” R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c).
{¶9} To impose consecutive terms of imprisonment “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, but it has no obligation to state reasons
to support its findings.” State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 37.
{¶10} Here, Efford maintains that “[t]he record is devoid of the specific findings
required by law to justify consecutive terms, and the court failed to articulate those
findings at the sentencing hearing or incorporate them into its judgment entry.”
{¶11} However, at sentencing, the trial court noted that Efford had several
convictions commencing in 1993, including multiple OVIs. The trial court observed:
Now, you do have a substantial prior criminal record, a history
of criminal convictions as the Court reviewed specifically in
PAGE 3 OF 6
Case No. 2025-A-0063
detail in the presentence investigation report. That includes
the multiple past OVIs and other convictions, mostly
misdemeanors, beginning in 1993 throughout the years. And
it does include several drug and alcohol-related offen[s]es, as
well as resisting arrest and domestic violence and assault. So
there was definitely a long period of time, many years where
you were not law abiding.
Now, one of the concerns here from the record, is that there
was a gap of time where you followed the law and it appears
you were doing well. You worked hard to do that and you
mention that. The Court appreciates that. But again, we are
here, because of the present offenses. And so it’s concerning
that there was -- that we’re back here. I’ll be very honest with
you. It is very concerning.
You had trouble following the rules of probation previously in
Cuyahoga County, that was prior to 2014 . . . And then also .
. . in Cleveland Municipal Court. There is a pattern of drug and
alcohol use here. These are serious offenses. This is a felony
OVI and not your first one. Also, there’s an attempted assault
here with a victim.
{¶12} With specific respect to consecutive service of the sentences, the trial court
found that “consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime
and to punish the defendant and that consecutive sentences will not be disproportionate
[to] the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and to the danger the defendant poses to
[the] public.” The Court further found that “the defendant’s history of criminal conduct
demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future
crime by the defendant.”
{¶13} The trial court incorporated these findings in the judgment entry, stating:
The Court has determined that the Defendant shall serve
prison terms consecutively pursuant to R.C. 2929.14 and that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public
from future crime and to punish the Defendant, and that
consecutive sentences will not be disproportionate to the
seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct and to the danger the
Defendant poses to the public. The Court further finds that the
PAGE 4 OF 6
Case No. 2025-A-0063
Defendant’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that
consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public
from future crime by the Defendant[,] as the Court[’]s review
of the Defendant’s past criminal conviction history in the presentence investigation report showed multiple past offenses
including past Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence
offenses and past Resisting Arrest, Domestic Violence and
drug-related offenses.
{¶14} Nonetheless, Efford appears to maintain that, because her history of past
offenses is not as severe as the defendant’s history in State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-1083,
consecutive sentences are improper. See id. at ¶ 8 (criminal history of the defendant
included “53 traffic convictions”). However, there is no requirement that a defendant’s
criminal history include any particular number of past offenses to permit the court to
impose consecutive sentences. As set forth above, we cannot reverse a court’s imposition
of consecutive service of sentences unless the record clearly and convincingly fails to
support the statutory findings or is otherwise contrary to law. Based on the foregoing, we
cannot say this standard is met in the present case.
{¶15} Accordingly, Efford’s sole assigned error is without merit.
{¶16} The judgment is affirmed.
MATT LYNCH, P.J.,
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,
concur.
PAGE 5 OF 6
Case No. 2025-A-0063
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, appellant’s sole 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.
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI
PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH,
concurs
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,
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 6 OF 6
Case No. 2025-A-0063