[Cite as State v. Blosser, 2024-Ohio-1649.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- vs -

ZACHARY D. BLOSSER,

Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NOS. 2023-P-0070

 2023-P-0071

Criminal Appeals from the

Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court Nos. 2021 CR 00239

 2022 CR 00097

O P I N I O N

Decided: April 29, 2024

Judgment: Affirmed in part and remanded

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Kristina K. Reilly, Assistant 

Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Sean P. Martin, 113 North Chestnut Street, Suite A, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For 

Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Zachary D. Blosser, appeals the sentences imposed on 

Involuntary Manslaughter with a firearm specification, a first-degree felony, and 

Aggravated Assault, a fourth-degree felony, by the Portage County Court of Common 

Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm.

{¶2} On March 18, 2021, in Case No. 2021 CR 00239, the Portage County Grand 

Jury returned a six-count indictment charging appellant with two counts of Murder, 

unclassified felonies, with a firearm specifications, in violation of R.C. 2903.02, R.C. 

2929.02, R.C. 2929.14(D) and R.C. 2941.145 (Counts 1 and 2); two counts of Felonious 
2

Case Nos. 2023-P-0070, 2023-P-0071

Assault, second degree felonies, with firearm specifications, in violation of R.C. 2903.11, 

R.C. 292914(D), and R.C. 2941.145 (Counts 3 and 4); Tampering with Evidence, a thirddegree felony, in violation of R.C.2921.12 (Count 5); and Safe Cracking, a fourth-degree 

felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.31 (Count 6). On March 19, 2021, appellant pleaded not 

guilty to the charges at arraignment and bond was set at $2,000,000 cash or surety.

{¶3} On January 28, 2022, in Case No. 2022 CR 00097, the Portage County 

Grand Jury returned an indictment charging appellant with Attempted Felonious Assault, 

a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2903.11. Appellant pleaded not 

guilty to the charge at arraignment. Bond was set at $50,000, 10% or cash or surety. 

{¶4} After the exchange of routine pretrial motions, on July 5, 2023, appellant 

appeared with counsel, waived his rights, and entered guilty plea to an amended 

indictment of Involuntary Manslaughter, a first-degree felony, with a firearm specification, 

in violation of R.C. 2903.04 (A) and (C), R.C. 292914, and R.C. 2941.145 in Case No. 

2021 CV 00239. As a result of the plea, the State dismissed the remaining counts of the 

indictment in Case No. 2021 CR 00239. A presentence investigation (“PSI”) was ordered 

and bond was continued.

{¶5} At the same hearing, appellant also entered a guilty plea to an amended 

indictment of Aggravated Assault, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2903.12 in 

Case No. 2022 CR 00097. The plea in the later case contained a jointly recommended 

sentence of 18 months imprisonment on the aggravated assault to run concurrently to the 

sentence on the involuntary manslaughter charge to be determined after the PSI was 

completed. 
3

Case Nos. 2023-P-0070, 2023-P-0071

{¶6} On September 1, 2023, appellant was sentenced in both cases in a single 

judgment entry. On the Involuntary Manslaughter conviction in Case No. 2021 CR 00239, 

the trial court sentenced appellant to an indefinite term of imprisonment of 9 years to 13 

1/2 years which was ordered to be served consecutively to a three-year prison term on 

the firearm specification. On the Aggravated Assault conviction in Case No. 2022 CR 

00097, the trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of 18 months and ordered that 

sentence to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in Case No. 2021 CR 

00239. In the sentencing entry, the trial court calculated appellant’s aggregate prison term

as 12 to 13 1/2 years.1

{¶7} Appellant timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error for 

review: “The trial court did not consider the sentencing factors found in R.C. 2929.12.” 

{¶8} We review felony sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which 

provides:

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.

1. This appears to be an incorrect calculation of the aggregate sentence. The three-year firearm 

specification will be served prior to and consecutive to the nine to 13 1/2 year sentence, making the 

aggregate term 12 to 16 1/2 years. 
4

Case Nos. 2023-P-0070, 2023-P-0071

{¶9} “A sentence is contrary to law when it is ‘in violation of statute or legal 

regulations’ * * *.” State v. Meeks, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0060, 2023-Ohio-988, 

¶ 11, quoting State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 

34. If a sentence falls outside the statutory range for the offense, “or if the trial court fails 

to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 

the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12,” the sentence is contrary to law. State v. 

Shannon, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2020-T-0020, 2021-Ohio-789, ¶ 11, quoting State v.

Brown, 2017-Ohio-8416, 99 N.E.3d 1135, ¶ 74 (2d Dist.); see also State v. Wilson, 11th 

Lake No. 2017-L-028, 2017-Ohio-7127, ¶ 18.

{¶10} Appellant alleges that “[t]here is no point where the Trial Court makes any 

reference, or even a ‘rote recitation’ of the statutory factors set forth in 2929.12 anywhere 

in the sentencing hearing on September 1, 2023.” 

{¶11} “[T]his court has frequently noted that ‘even though a trial court is required 

to consider the R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors, it is not required to make specific 

findings on the record to comport with its statutory obligations.’” State v. Lamb, 11th Dist. 

Portage No. 2022-P-0084, 2023-Ohio-2834, ¶ 10, quoting Shannon at ¶ 17. Moreover, 

It is well-established that “consideration of the appropriate 

factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 can be presumed unless the 

defendant affirmatively shows to the contrary.” State v. 

Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1, 

¶ 243. A trial court's silence regarding the purposes of felony 

sentencing and/or the seriousness and recidivism factors is 

not sufficient to affirmatively demonstrate that the court did not 

comply with the statutes. State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295, 

525 N.E.2d 1361 (1988), paragraph three of the syllabus (“[a] 

silent record raises the presumption that a trial court 

considered the factors contained in R.C. 2929.12”); State v. 

Cozzone, 2018-Ohio-2249, 114 N.E.3d 601, ¶ 19 (11th Dist.) 

(“[t]he trial court did not explicitly state it considered R.C. 

2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 when it imposed appellant's 
5

Case Nos. 2023-P-0070, 2023-P-0071

sentence; however, we presume a trial court considered R.C. 

2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 from a silent record”).

Lamb, at ¶ 11 quoting, State v. Claar, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2020-P-0058, 2021-Ohio2180, ¶ 11.

{¶12} During the sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated that it reviewed the 

PSI, the sentencing memorandum, and the victim impact statements from members of 

the victim’s family. The trial court heard arguments from counsel and statements from 

appellant and appellant’s sister. The trial court also noted that it received several letters 

from appellant’s family members. The trial court then concluded that “I am going to find 

that you certainly are not amenable to community control sanctions and that a prison

sentence is consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing.” The trial court 

recognized that while appellant has taken responsibility for his involvement in the death 

of the victim, he did take efforts to cover up his actions by lying about his involvement 

during the initial stages of the investigation and by removing the magazine and placing it 

inside the safe immediately after the shooting. The trial court also discussed appellant’s 

juvenile record as contained in the PSI. 

{¶13} The sentencing entry states:

The Court considered the purpose of felony sentencing which 

is to protect the public from future crimes by the Defendant 

and to punish the Defendant using the minimum sanctions 

that the Court determines to accomplish those purposes 

without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local 

government resources. 

The Court also considered the need for incapacitating the 

Defendant, deterring the Defendant and others from future 

crime, rehabilitating the Defendant, making restitution to the 

victim of the offense, the public or both.
6

Case Nos. 2023-P-0070, 2023-P-0071

The Court also considered the evidence presented by 

counsel, oral statements, any victim impact statements, the 

Pre-Sentence Report, and the Defendant’s statement.

{¶14} While the trial court did not mention R.C. 2929.11 or R.C. 2929.12, 

specifically, we presume that the trial court considered these mandatory statutory 

provisions. Upon review of the record in this case, the record supports the trial court’s 

sentencing determination. The individually imposed sentences were within the statutory 

guidelines, and appellant has not affirmatively demonstrated that the trial court failed to 

comply with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error 

is without merit.

{¶15} While we find appellant’s assignment of error to be meritless, we remand 

this matter to the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the aggregate prison 

term. The judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is otherwise affirmed.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.