State v. John
John
Citation
2025 Ohio 2400
Court
Unknown Court
Decided
July 7, 2025
Importance
35%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
[Cite as State v. John, 2025-Ohio-2400.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2024-P-0062 Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas JOSHUA G. JOHN, Trial Court No. 2023 CR 01399 Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: July 7, 2025 Judgment: Affirmed Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Kristina K. Reilly, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). William C. Livingston, Berkman, Gordon, Murray & DeVan, 55 Public Square, Suite 2200, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant). JOHN J. EKLUND, J. {¶1} Appellant, Joshua G. John, appeals the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to an aggregate prison sentence of eight years following his guilty pleas to six counts of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, third- degree felonies. {¶2} Appellant raises three assignments of error, arguing (1) his sentences are contrary to law because the trial court imposed his sentences on counts for which he did not plead guilty and because the sentencing entry imposed sentences outside of his presence; (2) his sentences are contrary to law because the trial court failed to consider the required statutory factors and considerations; and (3) the record does not support consecutive sentences. {¶3} Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, we find Appellant’s assignments of error to be without merit. First, Appellant’s sentences are not clearly and convincingly contrary to law based on the trial court’s alleged imposition of different sentences at the sentencing hearing and in the entry. The record demonstrates that the trial court simply misspoke at the hearing in stating the count numbers. Second, Appellant has not clearly and convincingly established that his sentences are contrary to law based on the trial court’s alleged failure to consider the required factors and sentencing considerations. The record demonstrates that the trial court complied with the applicable law. Third, Appellant has not clearly and convincingly established that the record does not support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. {¶4} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas. Substantive and Procedural History {¶5} On December 21, 2023, the Portage County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on 12 felony counts: five counts of Rape, first-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2907.02 (Counts 1 through 5); six counts of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, third-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A), (B)(1), and (B)(3) (Counts 6 through 11); and one count of Corrupting Another with Drugs, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.02. All of the charged offenses allegedly occurred between October 1, 2023, and December 13, 2023, and involved a minor victim born in December 2008. PAGE 2 OF 19 Case No. 2024-P-0062 {¶6} On December 26, 2023, Appellant appeared for arraignment, pleaded not guilty, and was appointed counsel. {¶7} On August 22, 2024, Appellant executed a Written Plea of Guilty, in which he agreed to plead guilty to Counts 6 through 11, Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, in exchange for the State’s dismissal of the remaining counts. The parties further agreed that there would be a presentence investigation (“PSI”) and a victim impact statement; that Appellant would be required to register as a Tier II Sex Offender; and that the parties were free to argue sentence. {¶8} On the same date, the trial court held a plea hearing. The State presented the following factual basis: This case involved an individual, [Appellant], who on the first night in question was involved with another man. There was an incident that we believe we’d be able to show at trial where [Appellant] had a disagreement with this other individual that led [Appellant] to getting on Grindr, which, for the record, is a social media App that allows men to meet other men to engage in sexual activity. That night he did come in contact through the Grindr App with the victim in this case who was under the age of 18. And when we pulled up and went through the record and didn’t find the original Grindr profile was on [Appellant’s] phone, there’s
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 7, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
[Cite as State v. John, 2025-Ohio-2400.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2024-P-0062
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
JOSHUA G. JOHN, Trial Court No. 2023 CR 01399 Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: July 7, 2025
Judgment: Affirmed
Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Kristina K. Reilly, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
William C. Livingston, Berkman, Gordon, Murray & DeVan, 55 Public Square, Suite 2200, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Joshua G. John, appeals the judgment of the Portage County
Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to an aggregate prison sentence of eight years
following his guilty pleas to six counts of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, third-
degree felonies.
{¶2} Appellant raises three assignments of error, arguing (1) his sentences are
contrary to law because the trial court imposed his sentences on counts for which he did
not plead guilty and because the sentencing entry imposed sentences outside of his
presence; (2) his sentences are contrary to law because the trial court failed to consider the required statutory factors and considerations; and (3) the record does not support
consecutive sentences.
{¶3} Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, we find Appellant’s
assignments of error to be without merit. First, Appellant’s sentences are not clearly and
convincingly contrary to law based on the trial court’s alleged imposition of different
sentences at the sentencing hearing and in the entry. The record demonstrates that the
trial court simply misspoke at the hearing in stating the count numbers. Second,
Appellant has not clearly and convincingly established that his sentences are contrary to
law based on the trial court’s alleged failure to consider the required factors and
sentencing considerations. The record demonstrates that the trial court complied with
the applicable law. Third, Appellant has not clearly and convincingly established that the
record does not support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings.
{¶4} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common
Pleas.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶5} On December 21, 2023, the Portage County Grand Jury indicted Appellant
on 12 felony counts: five counts of Rape, first-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2907.02
(Counts 1 through 5); six counts of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, third-degree
felonies in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A), (B)(1), and (B)(3) (Counts 6 through 11); and
one count of Corrupting Another with Drugs, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C.
2925.02. All of the charged offenses allegedly occurred between October 1, 2023, and
December 13, 2023, and involved a minor victim born in December 2008.
PAGE 2 OF 19
Case No. 2024-P-0062 {¶6} On December 26, 2023, Appellant appeared for arraignment, pleaded not
guilty, and was appointed counsel.
{¶7} On August 22, 2024, Appellant executed a Written Plea of Guilty, in which
he agreed to plead guilty to Counts 6 through 11, Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor,
in exchange for the State’s dismissal of the remaining counts. The parties further agreed
that there would be a presentence investigation (“PSI”) and a victim impact statement;
that Appellant would be required to register as a Tier II Sex Offender; and that the parties
were free to argue sentence.
{¶8} On the same date, the trial court held a plea hearing. The State presented
the following factual basis:
This case involved an individual, [Appellant], who on the first night in
question was involved with another man. There was an incident that we
believe we’d be able to show at trial where [Appellant] had a disagreement
with this other individual that led [Appellant] to getting on Grindr, which, for
the record, is a social media App that allows men to meet other men to
engage in sexual activity. That night he did come in contact through the
Grindr App with the victim in this case who was under the age of 18. And
when we pulled up and went through the record and didn’t find the original
Grindr profile was on [Appellant’s] phone, there’s
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 7, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools