[Cite as State v. Long, 2024-Ohio-2852.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

MICHAEL KENNETH LONG,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2023-12-129

O P I N I O N

7/29/2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. CR2023-06-0832

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Law Office of John H. Forg, and John H. Forg, for appellant.

BYRNE, J.

{¶ 1} Michael Long appeals the sentence imposed by the Butler County Court of 

Common Pleas after Long was convicted of grand theft of a motor vehicle. For the 

reasons outlined below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. 
Butler CA2023-12-129

- 2 -

I. Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} The underlying facts of this case are simple. After a co-worker gave Long 

a ride to their place of employment, Long stole his co-worker's vehicle and totaled it in an 

accident. Long was charged with one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle, a fourthdegree felony. He eventually pleaded guilty to that charge after engaging in a plea 

colloquy with the trial court.1 During the pendency of his case, Long was on house arrest 

and electronically monitored. 

{¶ 3} At his sentencing hearing, Long argued to be placed on probation due to 

his diabetes, medications, and the possibility that part of one of his legs would need to be 

amputated. Nonetheless, the trial court sentenced Long to 17 months in prison. Long 

appealed. 

II. Legal Analysis

{¶ 4} Long's sole assignment of error states: 

THE IMPOSITION OF A PRISON SENTENCE IS INEFFECTIVE.

{¶ 5} Within this assignment of error, Long's brief broaches four separate legal 

issues. We note that the first and fourth issues do not relate to Long's stated assignment 

of error. In addition, Long concedes that several issues he raises are not supported by 

the law or the record. Nonetheless, we will briefly examine each issue.

{¶ 6} First, Long appears to question the validity of his plea. Generally speaking, 

"a defendant's decision to enter a plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary." State 

v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 10. Not only is the effectiveness of Long's plea unrelated 

1. A "plea colloquy" is "[a]n open-court dialogue between the judge and a criminal defendant . . . just before 

the defendant enters a plea, [and it is meant] to establish that the defendant understands the consequences 

of the plea." PLEA COLLOQUY, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). 
Butler CA2023-12-129

- 3 -

to the stated assignment of error, but Long states that the trial court's "plea colloquy 

satisfied the requirements of law." Thus, in his own words, we conclude that Long "cannot 

challenge the validity of his negotiated pleas [sic]."

{¶ 7} We overrule Long's assignment of error as to this first issue. 

{¶ 8} Second, Long argues the trial court failed to consider his medical conditions 

when it sentenced him to 17 months of imprisonment. A felony of the fourth degree may 

be punished by up to 18 months in prison. R.C. 2929.14(A)(4). In imposing a sentence, 

the trial court must consider various factors relating to the seriousness of the defendant's 

conduct and his likelihood to commit crime again. See generally, R.C. 2929.12. Under 

the statute, a trial court "has discretion to determine the most effective way to comply with 

the purposes and principles of sentencing . . . ." Id. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an 

appellate court may alter the sentence imposed by the trial court if it "clearly and 

convincingly finds . . . that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings . . 

. [or] [t]hat is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Willis, 2024-Ohio-2210, ¶ 64 (12th Dist.). 

{¶ 9} Here, Long admits that his sentence falls within the range allowed under 

Ohio law. Nonetheless, Long asserts the trial court should have considered placing him 

on probation due to his medical condition. However, Long makes no legal argument and 

points to no legal authority asserting why his medical condition is relevant to determine 

an appropriate sentence. We will not endeavor to create an argument for him. 

{¶ 10} We overrule Long's assignment of error as to this second issue. 

{¶ 11} Third, Long appears to argue the trial court should have granted his request 

for jail-time credit for the time he spent on house arrest and electronic monitoring. Yet, 

Long also recognizes this court has expressly held "an individual subjected to house 

arrest may not be awarded jail-time credit for the time spent on house arrest . . . because 

an individual's liberties, freedom of choices, and movement are not restrained to an extent 
Butler CA2023-12-129

- 4 -

commonly associated with being 'confined.'" State v. Porter, 2018-Ohio-3123, ¶ 19 (12th 

Dist.).

{¶ 12} We overrule Long's assignment of error as to this third issue. 

{¶ 13} Fourth, Long's appellate counsel asserts that "Long may complain that his 

trial counsel was ineffective." Yet, Long's appellate counsel states that after review of the 

record, there is no evidence that Long's trial counsel was ineffective. 

{¶ 14} We overrule Long's assignment of error as to this fourth issue, to the extent 

that Long can even be considered to have raised this issue.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 15} In conclusion, we determine Long has identified no errors in the underlying 

proceedings by the trial court or by counsel. We overrule Long's sole assignment of error.

{¶ 16} Judgment affirmed.

S. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.