[Cite as State v. Bailey, 2014-Ohio-5129.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

 : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- : 

 : Case No. 14-COA-008 

 : 

BOBBY A. BAILEY : 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland County Court 

of Common Pleas, Case No. 13-CRI113 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 17, 2014 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: 

 

CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNELL ERIN N. POPLAR 

ASHLAND CO. PROSECUTOR DANIEL D. MASON 

PAUL T. LANGE POPLAR & MASON, LLC 

110 Cottage St., 3rd Floor 103 Milan Ave., Suite 6 

Ashland, OH 44805 Amherst, OH 44001 

 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 2 

Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Bobby A. Bailey appeals from the February 26, 2014 

Judgment Entry--Sentencing of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee 

is the state of Ohio. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶2} A statement of the facts underlying appellant’s criminal convictions is not 

relevant to our resolution of this appeal. This case arose when appellant, sometimes in 

league with others, stole a number of items from at least three victims to facilitate his 

heroin habit. On several occasions he entered into homes or a garage to steal the 

items or assisted others in doing so. 

{¶3} Appellant was charged by indictment with nine criminal offenses as 

follows: Count I, complicity to burglary [R.C. 2923.03(A)(2)/R.C. 2911.12(A)(2), a felony 

of the second degree]; Count II, complicity to theft from an elderly person [R.C. 

2923.03(A)(2)/R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fifth degree]; Count III, complicity to 

theft [R.C. 2923.03(A)(2)/R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fifth degree]; Count IV, 

complicity to burglary [R.C. 2923.03(A)(2)/R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), a felony of the third 

degree]; Count V, complicity to petty theft [R.C. 2923.03(A)(2)/R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a 

misdemeanor of the first degree]; Count VI, possession criminal tools [R.C. 2923.24(A), 

a felony of the fifth degree]; Count VII, tampering with evidence [R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a 

felony of the third degree]; Count VIII, breaking and entering [R.C. 2911.13(A), a felony 

of the fifth degree]; and Count IX, petty theft [R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the 

first degree]. 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 3 

{¶4} Appellant and appellee entered into a negotiated plea agreement. On 

December 10, 2013, appellant appeared before the trial court, withdrew his pleas of not 

guilty, and entered pleas of guilty to Count I, complicity to burglary, a felony of the third 

degree (amended by appellee from a second-degree felony); Count II, complicity to theft 

from an elderly person; Count IV, complicity to burglary; Count V, complicity to petty 

theft; Count VII, tampering with evidence; and Count VIII, breaking and entering. The 

trial court advised appellant of the possible range of sentences for each offense. 

Appellee dismissed Counts III, VI, and IX. 

The P.S.I. 

{¶5} Appellant submitted to a presentence investigation (P.S.I.) which is in the 

record on appeal. Appellant self-reported a history of substance abuse including, e.g., 

crack cocaine through 2009. He stated he was under the influence of heroin during the 

offenses in the instant case and admitted to using as much as two to two-and-a-half 

grams per week. He has been in treatment previously for heroin addiction which was 

unsuccessful. Appellant also sought suboxone therapy which was unsuccessful. Upon 

his arrest on the charges sub judice, Appellant acknowledged hiding a syringe near one 

of his truck tires. 

{¶6} The P.S.I. notes the following seriousness factors pursuant to R.C. 

2929.12(B): the injury to the victim was worsened by the physical or mental condition or 

age of the victim because one of the victims was an elderly adult; and, the offender’s 

relationship with the victim facilitated the offense because at least one of the victims 

was a cousin of appellant’s girlfriend. 

{¶7} None of the “less serious” factors pursuant to R.C. 2929.12(C) are noted. 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 4 

{¶8} The P.S.I. notes the following factors indicating recidivism is likely 

pursuant to R.C. 2929.12(D): the offender’s history of criminal convictions including 

receiving stolen property, open container, and unauthorized use of property; and 

appellant’s demonstrated pattern of drug use related to the offenses, including his 

refusal to acknowledge substance abuse issues and to seek and comply with treatment. 

{¶9} One factor indicates recidivism is unlikely pursuant to R.C. 2929.12(E): 

appellant was not adjudicated a delinquent child and has no known juvenile record. 

Sentencing 

{¶10} On February 21, 2014, appellant appeared before the trial court for 

sentencing. The court imposed an aggregate prison term of 48 months, which is the 

total of three twelve-month consecutive terms and two six-month consecutive terms. An 

additional 90-day term is ordered to be served concurrently. The trial court stated the 

following regarding consecutive sentences: 

* * * *. 

THE COURT: * * * *. 

 Based on your criminal history and your self-reporting of 

ongoing criminal activity and the Court’s belief that you pose a poor 

risk of rehabilitation * * *, I am finding that consecutive service of 

these sentencings are necessary to protect the public from future 

crime, and I am further finding that consecutive sentencings of 

these (inaudible) and the time that the Court is imposing on each 

specific count are not disproportionate to the seriousness of your 

conduct and the danger you pose to the public, and I am further 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 5 

finding that your history of criminal conduct convicted or selfreported demonstrates that consecutive Sentencings are necessary 

to protect the public from future crime. 

* * * *. 

T. (Sent.) 22. 

{¶11} Appellant now appeals from the February 26, 2014 Judgment Entry--

Sentencing. 

{¶12} Appellant raises four assignments of error: 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶13} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPOSED CONSECUTIVE 

SENTENCES SUCH THAT THE AGGREGATE SENTENCE EXCEEDED THE 

MAXIMUM PRISON TERM ALLOWED BY OHIO REVISED CODE 2929.14(A) FOR 

THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE OF WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED, 

36 MONTHS.” 

{¶14} “II. THE COURT ERRED IN ORDERING A PRISON SENTENCE 

RATHER THAN COMMUNITY CONTROL AND CONSECUTIVE RATHER THAN 

CONCURRENT PRISON SENTENCES FOR A FIRST-TIME FELONY EXPRESSLY 

BASED UPON IMPROPER STATEMENTS BY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.” 

{¶15} “III. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH 

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, 

SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BECAUSE HIS COUNSEL DID NOT 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 6 

OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY’S IMPROPER REMARKS AT 

SENTENCING.” 

{¶16} “IV. THE COURT ERRED IN ORDERING CONSECUTIVE PRISON 

SENTENCES AS THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH SENTENCES PLACES AN 

UNNECESSARY BURDEN ON STATE RESOURCES.” 

ANALYSIS 

I., II., IV.

{¶17} Appellant’s first, second, and fourth assignments of error are related and 

will be considered together. Appellant argues the trial court erred in imposing 

consecutive sentences. We disagree. 

The Standard of Review 

{¶18} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 896 N.E.2d 124, 2008–Ohio–4912, 

the Ohio Supreme Court established a two-step procedure for reviewing a felony 

sentence. The first step is to “examine the sentencing court's compliance with all 

applicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the 

sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Kalish at ¶ 4. If the first step is 

satisfied, the second step requires the trial court's decision be reviewed under an 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. 

{¶19} We acknowledge this district still relies upon Kalish’s two-step standard of 

review.1

 We recognize this approach has been followed by some districts2 and rejected 

 

1 See, e.g., State v. Nugent, 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 13 CA 40, 2014-Ohio-3848; State v. 

Salim, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 14 CAA 01 0005, 2014-Ohio-3602; State v. Shuster, 5th 

Dist. Morgan Nos. 13AP0001, 13AP0002, 2014-Ohio-3486, State v. Picard, 5th Dist. 

Richland No. 13-CA-95, 2014-Ohio-2924. 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 7 

by others.3 Kalish is a plurality opinion and thus of “questionable precedential value.” 

State v. Venes, 2013–Ohio–1891, 992 N.E.2d 453, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), citing Kraly v. 

Vannewkirk, 69 Ohio St.3d 627, 633, 635 N.E.2d 323 (1994). Nevertheless, its two-step 

analysis has provided appellate courts with a meaningful framework for evaluating 

felony sentences, permitting us to honor the sentencing discretion of trial courts while 

ensuring those sentences comply with applicable statutes. The appellate courts which 

now reject the Kalish two-step standard of review find only R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is 

applicable and the abuse-of-discretion standard of review is no longer allowed. 

{¶20} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides two grounds for an appellate court to 

overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences: (1) the sentence is “otherwise 

contrary to law”; or (2) the appellate court, upon its review, clearly and convincingly 

finds that “the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings” under R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4). 

{¶21} The presumption in Ohio is that sentencing is to run concurrent, unless the 

trial court makes the required findings for imposing consecutive sentence set forth in 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). See, R.C. 2929.41(A). 

{¶22} O.R.C. 2929.14(C) states: 

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

convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender 

 2 See, e.g., State v. Hill, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 13 MA 1, 2014-Ohio-919, infra; State v. 

Nguyen, 4th Dist. Athens No. 12 CA 14, 2013-Ohio-3170; State v. Clayton, 9th Dist. 

Summit No. 26910, 2014-Ohio-2165. 

3 See, e.g., State v. White, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130114, 2013-Ohio-4225, 997 

N.E.2d 629; State v. Rodefer, 2nd Dist. Montgomery Nos. 25574, 25575, 25576, 2013-

Ohio-5759, 5 N.E.2d 1069; State v. Venes, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98682, 2013-Ohio1891, 992 N.E.2d 453.
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 8 

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: 

(a) The offender committed 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) The harm caused by the multiple offenses was so great or 

unusual that no single prison terms for any of the offenses 

committed as part of a single course 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. 

{¶23} 2011 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86, which became effective on September 30, 

2011, revived the language provided in former R.C. 2929.14(E) and moved it to R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4). The revisions to the felony sentencing statutes now require a trial court 

to make specific findings when imposing consecutive sentences. 

{¶24} The Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed the requirements for 

imposing consecutive sentences in a comprehensive fashion, finding a trial court must 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 9 

make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and 

incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry; the trial court has no obligation to state 

reasons to support its findings. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 

16 N.E.3d 659, syllabus. The Court further explained “a word-for-word recitation of the 

language of the statute is not required, and as long as the reviewing court can discern 

that the trial court engaged in the correct analysis and can determine that the record 

contains evidence to support the findings, consecutive sentences should be upheld.” Id. 

at ¶ 29. 

The Record Supports Consecutive Sentences

{¶25} Appellant argues his consecutive sentences are contrary to law because 

the total aggregate sentence exceeds the maximum term allowable for appellant’s most 

serious offense. A trial court has discretion to impose any sentence within the statutory 

range. State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006–Ohio–855, 846 N.E.2d 1. The 

sentence imposed here is within the range permitted by law for the second and fifth 

degree-felonies upon which Appellant was convicted and in fact, are in the low end of 

the range. 

{¶26} Appellant further argues the trial court based the sentence upon 

improper statements by the prosecutor, including amendment of the count representing 

the offense against the elderly victim. Appellant also takes issue with the emphasis the 

trial court placed on his drug abuse and voluntary admissions contained within the 

P.S.I., but such information is solidly relevant to the sentencing analysis. Evidence of 

other crimes, including crimes that never result in criminal charges being pursued, or 

criminal charges that are dismissed as a result of a plea bargain, may be considered at 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 10 

sentencing. State v. Starkey, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 06 MA 110, 2007-Ohio-6702, ¶ 17, 

citing State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20, 35, 544 N.E.2d 895 (1989). Furthermore, what 

the defendant is originally charged with and whether the charge is reduced in exchange 

for a plea is relevant to the court in determining the appropriate sentence. State v. Hill, 7

th Dist. Mahoning No. 13 MA 1, 2014-Ohio-919, ¶ 35. Our review of a felony sentence 

includes: (1) the P.S.I.; (2) the trial court record; and (3) any oral or written statements 

made to or by the court at the sentencing hearing. R.C. 2953.08(F). Allegations against 

an offender which never resulted in criminal charges may be contained within a P.S.I. 

Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d at 35. This information is part of a defendant's social history and 

worthy of consideration by the courts during the sentencing phase. Id. 

{¶27} Appellant also argues his consecutive sentences place an unnecessary 

burden on state resources. R.C. 2929.11(A) provides: 

A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided by 

the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The overriding 

purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future 

crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender using 

the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those 

purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local 

government resources. To achieve those purposes, the sentencing 

court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, 

deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating 

the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the 

public, or both. 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 11 

{¶28} As we noted in State v. Ferenbaugh, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 03COA038, 

2004–Ohio–977 at ¶ 7, “[t]he very language of the cited statute grants trial courts 

discretion to impose sentences. Nowhere within the statute is there any guideline for 

what an ‘unnecessary burden’ is.” Moreover, in State v. Shull, 5th Dist. Ashland 

No.2008–COA036, 2009–Ohio–3105, we reviewed a similar claim and found that, 

although burdens on state resources may be a relevant sentencing criteria, state law 

does not require trial courts to elevate resource conservation above seriousness and 

recidivism factors. Shull, at ¶ 22, citing State v. Ober, 2nd Dist. No. 97CA0019, 1997 

WL 624811 (October 10, 1997). 

{¶29} Appellant victimized multiple people, including an elderly woman and his 

girlfriend’s cousin, stealing from them to fuel what was estimated to be a $300-per-week 

heroin habit. Appellant is demonstrably unwilling to treat this habit in a meaningful way. 

Nothing in the record indicates appellant would not be willing to victimize others to feed 

this habit in the future. Appellant has not demonstrated that a prison term in the instant 

case is an unnecessary burden on state and local resources. 

{¶30} In this case, the trial court noted factors it considered at sentencing, and 

specifically stated that it considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under 

R.C. 2929.11, as well as the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12. The transcript of the 

sentencing hearing and judgment entry clearly indicate that the trial court engaged in 

the appropriate analysis and made the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). 

Rather than establishing error, the record supports the trial court’s findings for imposing 

consecutive sentences. Appellant’s first, second, and fourth assignments of error are 

therefore overruled. 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 12 

III. 

{¶31} In his third assignment of error, appellant argues he received ineffective 

assistance of counsel because counsel failed to object to the allegedly improper 

statements of the prosecutor at sentencing. We disagree. 

{¶32} To succeed on a claim of ineffectiveness, a defendant must satisfy a twoprong test. Initially, a defendant must show that trial counsel acted incompetently. See, 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). In assessing such 

claims, “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within 

the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must 

overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might 

be considered sound trial strategy.’” Id. at 689, citing Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 

101, 76 S.Ct. 158 (1955). “There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in 

any given case. Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular 

client in the same way.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. The question is whether counsel 

acted “outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Id. at 690. 

{¶33} Even if a defendant shows that counsel was incompetent, the defendant 

must then satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test. Under this “actual prejudice” 

prong, the defendant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for 

counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. 

{¶34} The objectionable statements at sentencing identified by appellant include 

that appellant already received his “break,” so to speak, because appellee amended the 

second-degree felony to a third-degree felony. Appellant cites no authority supporting 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 13 

his argument this is an improper statement; as discussed supra, the trial court may 

consider reduced charges in sentencing. Appellant also points to the prosecutor’s 

generalization that appellant committed other uncharged crimes but this information was 

contained within the P.S.I. which the trial court was required to consider. Finally, the 

prosecutor characterized the elderly victim as a nice person and lifelong community 

resident; again, appellant offers no authority supporting his conclusion this statement 

was improper and this information, too, could be gained from the P.S.I. which indicates 

appellant took advantage of the victim’s kindness to him. 

{¶35} We find, in short, appellant has failed to demonstrate any error by defense 

trial counsel in failing to object to any of the above statements, much less that the 

outcome of the proceeding have been different but for counsel’s failure to object. 

{¶36} Appellant’s third assignment of error is overruled. 
Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-008 14 

CONCLUSION 

{¶37} Appellant’s four assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of 

the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By: Delaney, J. and 

Gwin, P.J. 

Baldwin, J., concur.