[Cite as State v. Arnold, 2017-Ohio-1384.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

ZANE B. ARNOLD 

Defendant-Appellant

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

C.A. CASE NO. 27218 

T.C. NO. 15-CR-2916 

(Criminal Appeal from 

 Common Pleas Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the ___14th ___ day of _____April_____, 2017. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

HEATHER N. JANS, Atty. Reg. No. 0084470, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. 

Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 

 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

DAVID R. MILES, Atty. Reg. No. 0013841, 125 West Main Street, Suite 201, Fairborn, 

Ohio 45324 

 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

FROELICH, J. 

{¶ 1} Zane B. Arnold was found guilty on his guilty pleas of possession of cocaine 

(27g but less than 100g), a felony of the first degree; possession of heroin (10g but less 

than 50g), a felony of the second degree; and aggravated possession of drugs (5x bulk 

but less than 50x bulk), also a felony of the second degree. He was sentenced to a five-
-2- 

year mandatory term on each offense, to be served concurrently. The court also 

suspended Arnold’s driver’s license for five years, ordered him to pay court costs, and 

imposed mandatory terms of post-release control. Arnold appeals, arguing that the court 

should have imposed a three-year sentence. 

{¶ 2} For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. 

{¶ 3} On September 25, 2015, Arnold was indicted for possession of cocaine, 

possession of heroin, and two counts of aggravated possession of drugs 

(methamphetamine and fentanyl). He pled not guilty and filed a motion to suppress, 

which was overruled after a hearing. On July 14, 2016, Arnold pled guilty to possession 

of cocaine, possession of heroin, and aggravated possession of drugs 

(methamphetamine), as charged in the indictment; the fourth count, aggravated 

possession of drugs (fentanyl), was dismissed. The range of potential sentences for 

possession of cocaine, a felony of the first degree, was three to eleven years, and for the 

other offenses (felonies of the second degree), it was two to eight years. However, the 

parties agreed that Arnold would receive a prison sentence to “be capped at a maximum 

of five years.” After a presentence investigation, the court imposed a five-year sentence 

on each count, to be served concurrently, along with other sanctions described above. 

{¶ 4} As a preliminary matter, we must address whether Arnold may assign his 

sentence as error, where the sentence was an agreed sentence. R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) 

provides that “[a] sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this 

section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the 

defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” In 

accordance with R.C. 2953.08(D), we have held that agreed sentences are not 
-3- 

reviewable on appeal. State v. DeWitt, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24437, 2012-Ohio-635, 

¶ 13; State v. Turner, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24421, 2011-Ohio-6714. We have also 

held that a sentence within a jointly-recommended range is a jointly-recommended 

sentence for purposes of R.C. 2953.08. State v. Chattams, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 

26151, 2015-Ohio-453, ¶ 5, citing DeWitt at ¶ 13-15; cf. State v. Connors, 2d Dist. 

Montgomery No. 26721, 2016-Ohio-3195, fn. 2. An agreement to “cap” a sentence is 

analogous to an agreement to impose a sentence within an agreed range, for purposes 

of R.C. 2953.08. 

{¶ 5} Arnold concedes that his sentence was authorized by law. The prison terms 

were within the statutory ranges for felonies of the first and second degree, and were “not 

contrary to law”; mandatory prison time was required. He also does not dispute that the 

sentence imposed by the trial judge was within the jointly-recommended range. 

Accordingly, Arnold’s agreed-upon sentence is not reviewable on appeal. Dewitt at ¶ 15; 

Turner at ¶ 33. 

{¶ 6} The assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 7} The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

WELBAUM, J. and TUCKER, J., concur. 

Copies mailed to: 

Heather N. Jans 

David R. Miles 

Hon. Mary L. Wiseman