State v. MayleState v. Mayle
{¶1} Defendant Leeron Mayle challenges the trial court‘s decision to impose maximum consecutive prison terms for the four felony offenses to which he pled guilty. We find no error in the trial court‘s imposition of maximum sentences on the four charges, and we likewise see no basis for overturning the trial court‘s order that Mayle serve those sentences consecutively.
The Key Facts
{¶2} In September and October 2025, Mayle and his codefendant took property out of other persons’ vehicles in a hotel parking lot in Zanesville, Ohio. The two of them were soon thereafter indicted on various criminal charges stemming from the alleged thefts.
{¶3} Weeks later, Mayle pled guilty in the case to four fifth-degree-felony charges: three theft charges and one possession-of-criminal-tools charge. (He also pled guilty to a pair
{¶4} Mayle waived any request for a presentence investigation, but the trial judge nonetheless ordered that one be conducted. At the sentencing hearing held several weeks later once a presentence report had been prepared, the trial judge imposed 12-month prison terms on each of the four F5 charges, and the judge also ordered that Mayle serve those prison terms consecutively for an aggregate prison sentence of 48 months in the case. (Jail days on the two misdemeanors were imposed concurrently with the prison terms.)
Mayle‘s Failure to Object in the Trial Court Limits Our Review of the Sentence Here
{¶5} In his one assignment of error, Mayle challenges the trial court‘s imposition of maximum consecutive sentences.
{¶6} A defendant may, under
{¶7} We recently reiterated that a trial court‘s imposition of a maximum prison term for a felony offense is not contrary to law “‘if the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense‘” and if the court “‘considers both the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in
{¶8} With regard to our review of consecutive sentences, the Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he plain language of
{¶9} Before we turn to the merits of Mayle‘s argument, we note that Mayle did not object at the sentencing hearing once the trial judge announced the sentence. That misstep now poses a significant hurdle for him because, as we reiterated just last year, “[a]n error ‘that was not called to the attention of the trial court at a time when the error could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court’ is deemed forfeited absent plain error.” State v. Bright, 2025-Ohio-725, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Haudenschild, 2024-Ohio-407, ¶ 15 (5th Dist.). See also
{¶10} After the trial judge announced the sentence in the case and advised Mayle of his right to appeal, Mayle responded that he was not going to appeal and even said aloud that the trial judge “did the right thing.” The judge then asked Mayle‘s attorney whether any other matters needed to be addressed, and the attorney said that there were none. That exchange tells us that Mayle was given “a meaningful opportunity to express the concerns that [he] now
We See No Plain Error in the Sentence
{¶11} “To constitute plain error, an error ‘must be on the record, palpable, and fundamental, so that it should have been apparent to the trial court without objection.‘” Id. at ¶ 10, quoting State v. Dunlap, 2004-Ohio-6652, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.). “Notice of plain error under
{¶12} When imposing sentences on multiple charges, a trial court should start with the presumption that any prison term should be imposed concurrently with any other prison term, unless certain circumstances listed in
{¶13} “‘[T]he record must contain a basis upon which a reviewing court can determine that the trial court made the findings required by
{¶14} In this case, a presentence investigation was conducted by the trial court‘s probation staff, and the resulting presentence report was reviewed by the trial judge and by Mayle‘s counsel before the sentencing hearing. The record from the sentencing hearing also indicates that the trial judge considered the presentence report when determining the sentence to be imposed.
{¶15} At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel indicated that Mayle was taking responsibility for his actions, was using drugs when he committed the offenses, had been using drugs for quite some time, and desired to receive treatment at some point. Mayle‘s attorney also acknowledged a lengthy criminal history for Mayle but told the trial judge that the parties had taken that criminal record into account when they jointly recommended an aggregate prison term of 24 months in the case.
{¶16} The trial judge asked Mayle at the sentencing hearing if he had paid any of what the parties had agreed at the guilty-plea hearing was an $8,100 restitution obligation in the case. He had paid none of it, Mayle acknowledged, just as he had paid nothing toward a restitution obligation of more than $1,100 in a 2022 theft case in the same court. The trial judge noted that instead of finding employment to pay that prior restitution order, Mayle had been going out at night and stealing tools from vehicles.
{¶17} When summarizing aloud at the sentencing hearing Mayle‘s criminal history, the trial judge mentioned that Mayle had been previously convicted on similar charges involving, as in this case, thefts of tools and other personal property from victims’ vehicles
{¶18} Mayle contends that maximum consecutive sentences are not warranted in this case because, according to his appellate brief, he “is not one of the ‘worst offenders’ for whom maximum consecutive sentences are meant to be reserved.” In support of that view, Mayle cites a Supreme Court opinion that construed the “purposes and intent of S.B. 2.” State v. Comer, 2003-Ohio-4165, ¶ 21. In Senate Bill 2 — an overhaul of Ohio‘s sentencing statutes enacted 30 years ago —
{¶19} In accordance with Ohio‘s current statutory provisions on sentencing, the trial judge imposed definite prison terms that are within
{¶20} And though Mayle stipulated to the consecutive-sentence findings as part of his plea agreement with the State, the trial judge said aloud at the sentencing hearing his findings that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and punish the offender and were not disproportionate to the seriousness of Mayle‘s conduct and the danger that he posed to the public. The trial judge also found that consecutive sentences were warranted under
{¶21} (That last finding — that, in the words of
{¶22} Given that Mayle and his codefendant committed, over the course of several weeks, a series of thefts of personal property from inside vehicles in the same parking lot, the trial judge‘s conclusion that the offenses were part of a course of conduct seems appropriate. See State v. Bates, 2024-Ohio-2587, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.) (“A ‘course of conduct’ exists for purposes of
{¶23} As for the trial court‘s finding that the harm caused by the offenses was — in the words of
{¶24} We see no plain error in the trial judge‘s
By: Gormley, J.;
Hoffman, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.