State v. Lewis

[Cite as State v. Lewis, 2026-Ohio-1326.]



             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                              SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  MAHONING COUNTY

                                            STATE OF OHIO,

                                            Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                     v.

                                 MATTHIAS MERRITT LEWIS,

                                        Defendant-Appellant.


                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                            Case No. 25 MA 0093


                                   Criminal Appeal from the
                       Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio
                                   Case No. 2025 CR 00068

                                           BEFORE:
                   Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.


                                                JUDGMENT:
                                                  Affirmed.


Atty. Lynn Maro, Mahoning County Prosecutor, and Atty. Kristie M. Weibling, Assistant
Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee


Atty. Sarah J. Francois, for Defendant-Appellant

                                            Dated: April 13, 2026
                                                                                      –2–


WAITE, P.J.

       {¶1}   Appellant Matthias Merritt Lewis appeals a September 16, 2025 judgment

entry of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, challenging only his sentence.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences, as he

claims the record does not support the requisite findings within R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Appellant also contends that the court erred when it considered the larger impact of the

child pornography epidemic on society when determining his sentence. Contrary to

Appellant’s arguments, the record supports the imposition of consecutive sentences and

the court was permitted by R.C. 2929.11 to consider the impact of child pornography on

society. Hence, Appellant’s arguments are without merit and the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

                             Factual and Procedural History

       {¶2}   On October 23, 2024, the Mahoning Valley Human Trafficking Task Force

received a tip from the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force pertaining to

child pornography. During the ensuing investigation, the task force learned that Appellant

had been uploading and downloading images of child pornography on his devices. As a

result, the task force obtained and executed a search warrant at Appellant’s residence

and discovered child pornography on at least two electronic devices owned by Appellant.

Appellant admitted that he had been viewing and trading child pornography for at least a

two-year period, using several different social media platforms. (Sentencing Hrg. Tr., p.

3.)

       {¶3}   The investigation led to an indictment charging Appellant with five counts of

pandering sexually orientated matter involving a minor or impaired person in violation of




Case No. 25 MA 0093
                                                                                     –3–


R.C. 2907.322(A)(5), felonies of the fourth degree. On June 11, 2025, Appellant pleaded

guilty to all counts as charged. Appellant was aware the state intended to seek a five-

year term of incarceration, while defense would ask for a lesser sentence.

       {¶4}    Pending the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered a forensic

examination.    A Sexual Offender Risk Assessment was completed by the Forensic

Psychiatric Center of Northeast Ohio, Inc.          A sentencing memorandum containing

information pertaining to the crimes themselves and Appellant’s progress in regard to

rehabilitative efforts was also presented to the court. The risk assessment contained the

conclusion that Appellant did not present a high risk of recidivism.

       {¶5}    At the sentencing hearing, both Appellant and his mother testified and took

responsibility for his actions. The court acknowledged the sincerity exhibited by both

Appellant and his mother, but addressed the severity of the crime and the graphic nature

of the photographs of the children. In an effort to not only deter Appellant from future

violations, but also to deter others, the court agreed with the sentence recommended by

the state.

       {¶6}    On September 16, 2025, the trial court imposed the following sentence: one

year of incarceration for each of the five charges, to run consecutively, for an aggregate

total of five years. The court allowed Appellant credit for 196 days served. Appellant was

also required to register as a tier two sex offender. No fines or costs were assessed.

However, Appellant is also subject to a mandatory five-year postrelease control term. It

is from this entry that Appellant timely appeals.




Case No. 25 MA 0093
                                                                                             –4–


                                      Standard of Review

       {¶7}    The standard for the review of a felony sentence, including any imposition

of a consecutive sentence, is found within R.C. 2953.08(G)(2):


               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 either of the following:


               (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court's findings

       under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of

       section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code,

       whichever, if any, is relevant;


               (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.


       {¶8}    Before addressing Appellant’s actual assignments of error, we note that the

state, in a footnote in its brief, inexplicably appears to raise a question as to the trial court’s

compliance with Crim.R. 11 in accepting Appellant’s plea. This reference is baffling for

two reasons. First, Appellant does not take issue with his plea, raising only sentencing



Case No. 25 MA 0093
                                                                                        –5–


issues. Thus, he has waived any other matter. Second, while we will forego a complete

discussion relative to this non-issue, our own review of the plea hearing reveals no

reversible error on the part of the trial court in this regard.

                             ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1


       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES

       UNDER R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) WHERE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT

       THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).


                             ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2


       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES

       UNDER R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) WITHOUT ESTABLISHING A FACTUAL

       NEXUS SHOWING THAT THE OFFENSES WERE PART OF A COURSE

       OF CONDUCT.


       {¶9}   We address Appellant’s first two assignments of error together, as they

share a common thread. Appellant contends that the record does not support the trial

court’s finding that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public or punish

the offender. Appellant appears to actually attack the court’s determination in weighing

the factors contained in R.C. 2929.12, rather than the consecutive nature of his

sentences. Appellant explains that at the time of sentencing, he had been participating

in a twelve-step sex addiction group, was engaged in treatment for mental health, and

had been compliant with medication management. Appellant also notes that he had no

prior criminal record and the forensic evaluation indicated he was at low risk of recidivism.




Case No. 25 MA 0093
                                                                                        –6–


Appellant also claims there was a lack of evidence to support the court’s finding that his

sentence was not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger

posed to the public.    Appellant specifically objects to the court’s determination that

pornographic images of children exist because people such as Appellant seek and

purchase them, and the only way to combat these behaviors is to adequately punish these

crimes. Finally, Appellant contends that the evidence does not support a finding that he

engaged in a course of conduct. Appellant claims that the court must specifically identify

some facts linking two or more offenses, which the court failed to do, here.

       {¶10} The state responds that the trial court is not required to provide reasons to

support its findings.    Nonetheless, the state asserts that the images, here, were

particularly graphic and involve minor, prepubescent girls. The state notes that at least

one video depicts a minor appearing to be raped in her sleep. As to the course of conduct,

the state points to Appellant’s own admission at the sentencing hearing that he has an

addiction, and that his long-term behavior satisfied that addiction.

       {¶11} The law governing consecutive sentences is found within R.C.

2929.14(C)(4), which provides:


              (4)   If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for

       convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve

       the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service

       is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender

       and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness

       of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,

       and if the court also finds any of the following:



Case No. 25 MA 0093
                                                                                        –7–


              (a) 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 post-release control for a prior offense.


              (b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of

       one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of

       the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single

       prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses

       of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender's conduct.


              (c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that

       consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime

       by the offender.


       {¶12} A trial court must make consecutive sentence findings at the sentencing

hearing and incorporate the findings into the sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 2014-

Ohio-3177, ¶ 37. The sentencing court is not required “to give a talismanic incantation

of the words of the statute.” State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-1083, ¶ 11, quoting Bonnell at

¶ 37. Rather, if an appellate court can “glean from the record that the court” made the

contested consecutive sentence findings, then its findings are sufficient. Bonnell at ¶ 36.

A trial court is not required to set forth the reasons in support of its consecutive sentence

findings. Id. at ¶ 37.

       {¶13} Preliminarily, we note that Appellant appears to misread the state’s brief.

The state does not argue that a trial court need not make all required findings pursuant



Case No. 25 MA 0093
                                                                                       –8–


to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).    Instead, the state appropriately notes that the court is only

required to make one of the three findings within subsection three of that statute.

       {¶14} At the hearing, the court acknowledged its duty to credit a defendant for

remorse is occasionally at odds with its duty to punish the offender and protect the public.

The court explained that sometimes it is required to balance those goals based on the

facts of the case. Here, the court explained that as the images were quite graphic and

involve minor children, a more severe sentence was required.

       {¶15} Discussing whether the imposition of consecutive sentences is necessary

to protect the public, punish the offender, and is not disproportionate to the seriousness

of the conduct and of the risk posed to the public, the court took a somewhat bifurcated

approach. The court weighed Appellant’s remorse and rehabilitation efforts against his

admission that he had a long-established addiction that he satisfied through child

pornography.    The court explained that his addiction and corresponding behavior

contributed to the overall societal problem, creating a market based on supply and

demand when he engaged in uploading and downloading these pornographic images of

children.   The court reviewed several images recovered from Appellant’s devices,

focusing on one video of a young girl sleeping who appeared to be raped by an adult

male. The court found this to be particularly disturbing, and along with several other of

Appellant’s images and videos, demonstrated the need to protect the public from future

crime and to punish Appellant. (Sentencing Hrg. Tr., p. 24.)

       {¶16} As to subsection (c), the court determined that the offenses were a part of

a course of conduct.     The state asserted at the sentencing hearing that Appellant

“admitted to viewing and trading pornography for at least two years leading up to his




Case No. 25 MA 0093
                                                                                       –9–


arrest.     He had utilized social media platforms such as Reddit, Kik, Session, and

TeleGuard to trade CSAM, child sex abuse material.” (Sentencing Hrg. Tr., p. 3.) As it

is apparent that Appellant engaged in the conduct that led to his convictions for more than

two years and used at least four different social media platforms, there is evidence of

record supporting a course of conduct based on Appellant’s own admissions.

          {¶17} Based on a review of the record, Appellant’s first and second assignments

of error are without merit and are overruled.

                              ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3


          THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED A SENTENCE THAT IS CONTRARY TO

          LAW BY FAILING TO CONSIDER THE INDIVIDUALIZED FACTORS

          REQUIRED BY R.C. 2929.11 AND R.C. 2929.12 AND BY RELYING ON

          IMPROPER, NON-STATUTORY SOCIETAL CONSIDERATIONS.


          {¶18} Appellant explains that Ohio law forbids a court from extraneous or improper

considerations.      Appellant contends that the court did just that in this matter by

considering during his sentencing the larger “societal issue.” Appellant also complains

that the court erred in stating that “[t]he reason those images are out there are because

people like [Appellant] search for them, crave them, pay for them.” (Appellant’s Brf., p.

22.)   Appellant urges that there is no evidence he paid for any images or that he

contributed to any larger societal problem.

          {¶19} The state responds that R.C. 2929.11(A) specifically authorizes

consecutive sentences “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and

others.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2929.11(A). Thus, the court did not err by considering




Case No. 25 MA 0093
                                                                                      – 10 –


the larger societal problem of child pornography. The state notes that the individual

sentences are within the statutory range and the aggregate maximum sentence Appellant

faced was seven and one-half years. Instead, he received only an aggregate five-year

term.

        {¶20} Before reaching the merits of the arguments, while Appellant appears to

concede the standard of review for consecutive sentences is whether the sentence is

contrary to law, he asserts that a court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12

must be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. There is no question that a felony sentence

is not reviewed for an abuse of discretion in Ohio. See State v. Nelder, 2025-Ohio-2906

(7th Dist.).

        {¶21} As previously discussed, the trial court determined that the seriousness of

Appellant’s conduct required a sentence designed to punish him and protect the public

from his conduct, and in so doing the court considered the larger societal problem of child

pornography. While Appellant claims that Ohio law prohibits the court’s consideration of

the societal issue in imposing his sentence, this is contradicted by R.C. 2929.11(A), which

provides in relevant part that “[t]he overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect

the public from future crime by the offender and others.”          (Emphasis added.)      By

specifically noting that one of the purposes in sentencing is to protect the public from

“others,” it implicitly allows a trial court to consider the deterrent effect as a whole when

imposing a sentence.

        {¶22} In addition, regardless of whether Appellant paid for these images or not,

he admitted to trading them with others. Trading is a form of payment. It is clear that

Appellant’s desire for these images contributed to demand and would encourage others




Case No. 25 MA 0093
                                                                                    – 11 –


to maintain a supply of these images, and Appellant’s trading of the images also furthered

that supply. Accordingly, Appellant’s third assignment of error is without merit and is

overruled.

                                       Conclusion

      {¶23} Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive

sentences, as he believes the record does not support the requisite findings of R.C.

2929.14(C)(4). Appellant also argues that the court erred in considering the need to

address the damage to society caused by child pornography. Contrary to Appellant’s

arguments, the record supports the imposition of consecutive sentences and the court

was expressly permitted to consider the larger societal issue by R.C. 2929.11. Hence,

Appellant’s arguments are without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


Robb, J. concurs.

Hanni, J. concurs.




Case No. 25 MA 0093
[Cite as State v. Lewis, 2026-Ohio-1326.]




        For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant’s assignments of

error are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment

of the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs waived.

        A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in

this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a

certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.




                                            NOTICE TO COUNSEL

        This document constitutes a final judgment entry.