[Cite as State v. Battle,
2025-Ohio-4731.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
OTTAWA COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. OT-24-047
Appellee Trial Court No. CRB-24-00662A
v.
Noah J. Battle DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 14, 2025
…
Mark S. O’Brien, Esq., for appellant.
James E. VanEerten, Esq., Ottawa County Prosecutor and
Daivia S. Kasper, Esq., Chief Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.
…
ZMUDA, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Noah Battle, appeals from the November 15, 2024 judgment of
the Ottawa County Municipal Court sentencing him to an aggregate jail term of 540 days
following his guilty plea to three misdemeanor drug possession offenses. For the
following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
A. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} Appellant was charged via complaint with one count of attempted
aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(a)
and two counts of possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(2)(a); each a
first-degree misdemeanor. The charges arose from a traffic stop that occurred on July 31,
2023. When approaching the vehicle, the officer initiating the stop observed the odor of
burnt marijuana. During a subsequent search of appellant’s vehicle, the officer found
appellant in possession of Dextroamphetimine, Tramadol, and Alprazolam.
{¶ 3} Appellant was originally indicted in the Ottawa County Court of Common
Pleas on one count of aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree felony, and two first-
degree misdemeanor possession of drug offenses. Following plea negotiations, the state
agreed to dismiss the common pleas indictment and refile three misdemeanor possession
offenses in the Ottawa County Municipal Court in exchange for appellant’s guilty plea to
the misdemeanor offenses. Appellant entered his guilty plea on September 3, 2024. The
trial court accepted his plea and ordered him to participate in a presentencing
investigation. The court indicated that its primary purpose in ordering the investigation
was to determine “whatever is happening with your life and with substances especially”
so that it could impose “an appropriate punishment[.]” The trial court released appellant
2.
pending sentencing on the condition, relevant to the present appeal, that he not ingest any
“substance[s] of abuse.”
{¶ 4} Appellant appeared for sentencing on November 15, 2024. At that time, the
trial court noted that appellant appeared for his initial presentencing interview with the
adult probation department late and that he “reek[ed]” of marijuana at the time. Further,
the court noted that prior to sentencing, appellant did not take part in any of the drug
counseling services available to him. Finally, the court referenced appellant’s appearance
at sentencing, during which he “smell[ed]” of marijuana. Appellant had also tested
positive for marijuana and Suboxone, a substance for which he had not provided a
prescription to the court, during a drug screening administered prior to sentencing. The
trial court also indicated that appellant’s failure to obtain marijuana through a legal
dispensary rendered his use of it illegal. The trial court also noted that appellant had been
offered, and declined, multiple opportunities to seek help with addiction issues while the
charges were pending.
{¶ 5} Appellant argued that his current use of marijuana was legal following the
passage of an amendment to the Ohio Constitution legalizing recreational marijuana and
that he used it to treat his post-traumatic stress disorder. He also denied the use of any
other drugs, including Suboxone, claiming that he had to pass drug tests to maintain his
current employment. He also attributed the smell of marijuana he exhibited at sentencing
to residual odor on his coat from being in the vehicle where he had used marijuana in the
past.
3.
{¶ 6} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court imposed a 180-day jail term
on each of appellant’s offenses. He ordered appellant to serve those sentences
consecutively for an aggregate jail term of 540 days.
B. Assignment of Error
{¶ 7} Appellant timely appealed the trial court’s judgment and asserts the
following error for our review:
The trial court committed reversible error by imposing upon appellant the
maximum sentence permitted by R.C. 2929.24 and 2929.28 based not upon
consideration of the principles, purposes and factors required by R.C.
2929.21 and 2929.22, but rather upon its concern for appellant’s ostensible,
ongoing use of marijuana – a substance that is legal in the State of Ohio for
recreational use.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 8} In his single assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in
imposing his sentence because it did not base the length of that sentence on the principles
and purposes of misdemeanor sentencing, as established in R.C. 2929.21 and 2929.22.
Instead, he argues, the trial court based his sentence “primarily, if not exclusively” on his
marijuana use. Appellant also argues that the record is devoid of the trial court’s
consideration of the statutory factors, rendering his sentence arbitrary.
{¶ 9} We review misdemeanor sentences for an abuse of discretion. State v. Haas,
2025-Ohio-683, ¶ 67 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Johnson,
2019-Ohio-4613, ¶ 31 (6th
Dist.). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s attitude is unreasonable,
arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore,
5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1993). Having
4.
reviewed the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
imposed appellant’s sentence.
{¶ 10} Appellant’s argument is premised on two unfounded assertions. First, he
argues that the trial court did not consider the required factors described in R.C. 2929.21
and 2929.22 because it did not expressly state that it had done so. Second, he argues that
the trial court’s mischaracterization of his marijuana use as “illegal” was an improper
factor to consider in determining his sentence. We address these issues in turn.
{¶ 11} As to the trial court’s consideration of the purposes and principles of
misdemeanor sentencing, it is undisputed that the trial court did not expressly reference
its consideration of those factors when it imposed sentence. Appellant argues that the
trial court’s silence as to its consideration of those factors indicates that it did not
consider them. This is incorrect. Instead, when the record is silent as to the trial court’s
consideration of the applicable misdemeanor sentencing factors, we may presume that
they were considered. Haas at ¶ 68. “That presumption will only be destroyed if, for
instance, the trial court introduced an improper factor into the maximum sentencing
determination.”
Id. As described below, there is no indication in the record that the trial
court considered an improper factor when it determined appellant’s sentence. As a result,
we presume that the trial court considered the sentencing factors described in R.C.
2929.21 and 2929.22.
{¶ 12} As to the trial court’s alleged focus on appellant’s marijuana use, we find
that the record does not support appellant’s assertion that the court’s primary factor in
5.
determining his sentence was its belief that his marijuana use was illegal. Appellant is
correct that Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment to legalize recreational
marijuana use on November 7, 2023, approximately one year prior to his sentencing.
Appellant is also correct that the trial court, on several occasions, appears to have
misstated the status of recreational marijuana use as “illegal.” However, the record
indicates that the trial court’s characterization of appellant’s marijuana use as illegal was
unrelated to its determination of the appropriate sentence.
{¶ 13} Early in the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted its “opinion there is a
serious chemical dependency issue here.” Indeed, when the trial court accepted
appellant’s guilty plea on September 3, 2024, it released him pending sentencing with the
condition that he not ingest any substances of abuse. Nevertheless, the trial court noted,
appellant appeared for his presentencing investigation interview smelling like alcohol and
marijuana. While denying having used marijuana on the day of sentencing, appellant
admitted to continued use of marijuana on other occasions and he also tested positive for
Suboxone. Additionally, the trial court noted that appellant had declined multiple
opportunities to receive treatment for his admitted drug abuse while his case had been
pending.
{¶ 14} Put simply, the record reflects that the trial court considered appellant’s
continued use of marijuana and Suboxone in contravention of its specific instructions in
conjunction with his admitted drug abuse issue when it imposed his sentence. The record
also shows that the trial court considered appellant’s failure to avail himself of any
6.
treatment for his drug abuse after he was released following his plea and prior to
sentence. Considering the trial court’s stated rationale for the sentence it determined was
appropriate, we find that any misstatements the trial court made regarding the legality of
appellant’s marijuana use were inconsequential to that determination. As a result, we
find that the trial court’s imposition of sentence was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable and his single assignment of error is found not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 15} For these reasons, we find appellant’s single assignment of error not well-
taken, and we affirm the November 15, 2024 judgment of the Ottawa County Municipal
Court. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J.
CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
7.
