[Cite as State v. Combs,
2025-Ohio-1702.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
UNION COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 14-24-31
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
V.
GREGORY LEE COMBS II, OPINION AND
JUDGMENT ENTRY
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2023-CR-0195
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: May 12, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Alison Boggs for Appellant
Samantha Hobbs for Appellee
Case No. 14-24-31
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Gregory Lee Combs, II (“Combs”) brings this
appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County
sentencing him to consecutive sentences. On appeal, Combs claims that the
sentence imposed was contrary to law. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment
is affirmed.
{¶2} On September 7, 2023, the Union County Grand Jury indicted Combs
on the following 23 counts.
Count Offense Statute Violated
1 Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt 2923.32(A)(1), (B)(1)
Activity (F1)
2 Aggravated Funding of Drug 2925.05(A)(1), (C)(1)
Trafficking (F1)
3 Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs (F3) 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(c)
4 Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs (F2) 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(d)
5 Aggravated Possession of Drugs (F2) 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(c)
6 Aggravated Trafficking (F2) 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(c)
7 Aggravated Possession of Drugs (F3) 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(b)
8 Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs (F2) 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(c)
9 Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs (F2) 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(c)
10 Aggravated Possession of Drugs (F3) 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(b)
11 Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs (F2) 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(c)
12 Aggravated Possession of Drugs (F3) 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(c)
13 Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs (F1) 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(d)
14 Aggravated Possession of Drugs (F2) 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(c)
15 Aggravated Trafficking (F3) 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(c)
16 Aggravated Possession of Drugs (F3) 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(b)
17 Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs (F2) 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(d)
18 Aggravated Possession of Drugs (F2) 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(c)
19 Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs (F1) 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(d)
-2-
Case No. 14-24-31
20 Aggravated Possession of Drugs (F2) 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(c)
21 Aggravated Trafficking (F3) 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(d)
22 Aggravated Possession of Drugs (F3) 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(b)
23 Aggravated Possession of Drugs (F5) 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a)
On September 12, 2023, Combs entered pleas of not guilty to all counts. Combs
and the State reached an agreement in which Combs agreed to enter guilty pleas to
counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 21. Combs also agreed to all of the
forfeiture specifications attached to those counts. In exchange, the State agreed to
dismiss the remaining counts. No agreed sentence recommendation was reached.
On February 6, 2024, the trial court conducted a change of plea hearing where the
trial court accepted the changes of pleas pursuant to the agreement, found Combs
guilty of the agreed counts and dismissed the remainder of the counts.
{¶3} The sentencing hearing was held on March 15, 2024. The trial court
considered the purposes and principles of sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and
the statutory sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. The trial court then
imposed the following prison terms: count 1 = 6 to 9 years; count 3 = 12 months;
count 4 = 2 years; count 6 = 2 years; count 9 = 2 years; count 11 = 2 years; count
13 = 3 years; count 15 = 12 months; count 17 = 2 years; count 19 = 3 years; and
count 21 = 12 months. The trial court ordered that all of the sentences be served
consecutively for an aggregate prison term of 25 to 28 years. The trial court also
noted that the 25 year minimum term was mandatory. Combs appeals from this
judgment and raises the following assignment of error on appeal.
-3-
Case No. 14-24-31
The trial court erred when it sentence [Combs] to consecutive
sentences.
{¶4} Combs’ sole assignment of error claims that the trial court erred by
imposing consecutive sentences. The basis of this argument appears to be that 1)
the sentence is not supported by the record and 2) not all of the sentences should be
mandatory. Appellate review of criminal sentences is governed by R.C. 2953.08.
The statute is unambiguous and limits the authority of appellate courts to review
consecutive sentences. State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851.
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 discretion. The appellate court may take any action
authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds . . .
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings
under division . . . (C)(4) of section 2929.14.
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The Supreme Court of Ohio has defined “clear and convincing
evidence” as “that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere
‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required
‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind
of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be
established.” Gwynne at ¶ 14 quoting Cross v. Ledford,
161 Ohio St. 469 (1954),
-4-
Case No. 14-24-31
paragraph three of the syllabus. Thus in order to reverse the findings made by the
trial court regarding consecutive sentences, an appellate court must have a firm
belief that the record does not support the findings that were made by the trial court.
Gwynne at ¶ 15.
{¶5} Here, the trial court made the following findings regarding consecutive
sentences.
The Court further finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to
protect the public from future crime and to punish the Defendant and
that consecutive sentences are not 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 offender committed one or more of
the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or
sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section
2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code or was under postrelease control for a prior offense.
The Court further finds that the Defendant’s history of criminal
conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to
protect the public from future crime by the Defendant.
Sentencing Entry at 11-12. A review of the pre-sentence investigation report
(“PSI”) shows that from January 1, 2023, until August 17, 2023, Combs was
participating with others in selling methamphetamines by assisting in gathering the
money, going to Dayton to pick up the drugs, and then helping to distribute the drugs
to various individuals. Prior to these convictions, Combs had an extensive record
involving drugs going back to 2006. In 2006, Combs was convicted of a
misdemeanor for possession of marijuana. In 2018, Combs was convicted of two
-5-
Case No. 14-24-31
misdemeanor counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. In March of 2018, Combs
was convicted of a felony for aggravated possession of drugs for having crystal
methamphetamines. Combs was again convicted of a felony for possession of
methamphetamines in March 2019. In September of 2019, Combs was found guilty
of a third degree felony for possession of drugs for once again having
methamphetamine on his person. Given the record before us, we do not find that
the record clearly and convincingly indicates that the trial court’s findings are not
supported by the evidence. Thus, we may not reverse the judgment of the trial
court’s findings regarding consecutive sentences.
{¶6} Combs also argues that the trial court erred by finding that all the
sentences were mandatory. Combs claims that since the trial court failed to indicate
that the sentences as to counts 3, 15, and 21 were mandatory when stating the
sentences, that the subsequent statement that they were mandatory is contrary to
law. We disagree.
{¶7} “If aggravated trafficking in drugs is a felony of the third degree under
this division and if the offender two or more times previously has been convicted of
or pleaded guilty to a felony drug abuse offense, the court shall impose as
a mandatory prison term one of the prison terms prescribed for a felony of the third
degree.” R.C. 2925.03(C)(1)(c). A “felony drug abuse offense” is defined as any
felony conviction for violation of various statutes, including R.C. 2925.11
(possession of drugs). R.C. 2925.01(G)(1), (H). Here, counts 3, 15, and 21 all
-6-
Case No. 14-24-31
alleged violations of 2925.03 and were all third degree felonies. At the change of
plea hearing, the trial court notified Combs that for each of the third degree felonies
there would be a mandatory term of imprisonment because he had two or more prior
drug convictions. Feb. 6, 2024, Hearing at 11. Additionally, in the change of plea
agreement signed by Combs, it states that “[f]or each lower-tier F-3, there is a
mandatory term of prison because it is alleged that I have two or more prior drug
convictions in counts 3, 15, and 21.” As noted above, the PSI shows that Combs
has three prior felony drug abuse convictions. The statute states that the trial court
“shall” impose mandatory sentences if the conditions are met. Combs met the
conditions, thus the trial court was required to impose mandatory sentences. The
sentences imposed were not contrary to law. For these reasons, the assignment of
error is overruled.
{¶8} Having found no errors prejudicial to appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County
is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
WALDICK, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.
-7-
Case No. 14-24-31
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is
overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby
rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the
judgment for costs.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s
judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.
27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the
proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.
John R. Willamowski, Judge
Juergen A. Waldick, Judge
Mark C. Miller, Judge
DATED:
/hls
-8-
