Background
Joshua McClanahan appealed the Clark County Common Pleas Court judgment sentencing him to seven months in prison for violating a protection order, a fifth-degree felony. He was indicted in that case on August 5, 2024, based on events occurring July 26, 2024. The offense was a fifth-degree felony because McClanahan had a 2010 conviction in Clark County Municipal Court for violating a protection order.
McClanahan was later indicted in four additional protection-order cases: Clark C.P. Nos. 24-CR-0675, 24-CR-0695, 24-CR-0756, and 24-CR-0846. The docket did not reflect that the five cases were consolidated. At a January 30, 2026 plea hearing involving all five cases, McClanahan pleaded guilty in this case to the single indicted count. His plea form indicated that he also pleaded guilty in the other cases to five additional counts of violating a protection order and one count of menacing by stalking.
On February 19, 2026, the trial court sentenced McClanahan in all five cases. It imposed seven months in the case on appeal, but did not order that sentence to run consecutively to any sentence in the other cases. In the other four cases, the court imposed seven-month terms for each of the other five protection-order offenses and an 18-month term for menacing by stalking. Those sentences were ordered to run consecutively, producing an aggregate 60-month sentence. The trial court filed separate judgment entries, and the entry attached to McClanahan’s appeal was captioned only with Case No. 24-CR-0596. He filed a notice of appeal only in that case.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Writing for the court, Judge Hanseman explained that McClanahan’s brief did not formally state an assignment of error, as App.R. 16(A)(3) requires. The court nevertheless discerned from his argument that he intended to challenge consecutive sentences as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence and contrary to law.
The court held that the issue was not properly before it. The seven-month sentence in the appealed case was not consecutive to any other sentence, and McClanahan had not filed notices of appeal in the four cases in which consecutive sentences were imposed. The court therefore overruled the inferred assignment of error and affirmed the judgment in Case No. 24-CR-0596. It did not decide whether the consecutive-sentencing findings in the other cases were supported by the record.
The court relied on App.R. 3(A), which requires a notice of appeal and attachment of a time-stamped copy of the judgment or order being appealed; App.R. 4(A)(1), which generally requires the notice within 30 days of a final entry; and App.R. 4(D) and 9(A)(1), concerning criminal judgment entries and the appellate record. Citing State v. Clark, 2022-Ohio-2801, ¶ 5 (2d Dist.), State v. Clark, 2024-Ohio-751, ¶ 4 (2d Dist.), and State v. Hamilton, 2003-Ohio-574, ¶ 39 (6th Dist.), the court stated that Ohio appellate courts may not consider consecutive sentences when the appellant has not appealed the judgments imposing them. It also cited Peterson v. Johnson, 2021-Ohio-3852, ¶ 22 (6th Dist.), and State v. Soupe, 2021-Ohio-4114, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.), for the requirement of separate notices of appeal for unconsolidated trial-court cases. Judges Tucker and Huffman concurred.
Key Takeaways
- The appellate court affirmed only the judgment in Clark C.P. No. 24-CR-0596, which imposed a seven-month prison sentence.
- That sentence was not ordered to run consecutively to sentences in McClanahan’s other cases.
- The consecutive sentences and aggregate 60-month term arose in four other cases for which McClanahan filed no notices of appeal.
- The court overruled the inferred consecutive-sentencing assignment of error because those judgments were not before it, without reviewing the merits of the sentencing findings.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the case-specific scope of a criminal appeal involving multiple, unconsolidated trial-court cases. A joint plea or sentencing hearing and an aggregate prison term do not, by themselves, place every judgment before the appellate court. Counsel challenging consecutive sentences must identify and timely appeal each judgment imposing the sentences at issue and attach the required judgment entry.
The opinion also shows a limited accommodation for a briefing defect: although McClanahan omitted a formal assignment of error, the court inferred one from his argument. That accommodation did not overcome the absence of appeals from the judgments containing the consecutive-sentencing orders. The final entry directs costs under App.R. 24 and issuance of the mandate under App.R. 27.