[Cite as State v. Gorley, 2020-Ohio-3337.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: 

 Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

 Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

-vs- 

 Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, 

CT2019-0048, & CT2019-0049 

ROBERT C. GORLEY 

 

 Defendant-Appellant O P I N IO N 

 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Muskingum County 

Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. 

CR2019-0072, CR2019-0105, CR2019-

0144, & CR2019-0201 

 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 12, 2020 

APPEARANCES: 

 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

 

D. MICHAEL HADDOX CARLOS M. CRAWFORD 

Prosecuting Attorney Crawford | Glankler, LLC 

Muskingum County, Ohio 52 North Sandusky Street

 Delaware, Ohio 43015 

TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Muskingum County, Ohio 

27 North Fifth Street – P.O. Box 189 

Zanesville, Ohio 43701 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

2 

Hoffman, P.J. 

{¶1} In Muskingum App. Nos. CT 2019-46, CT2019-47, CT2019-48, and CT

2019-49, defendant-appellant Robert Gorley appeals his convictions and sentences 

entered by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, on six counts of violation of 

a protection order, two counts of theft by deception, and two counts of theft, after he 

entered guilty pleas to the charges. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} On April 12, 2019, Appellant pled guilty to a Prosecutor’s Bill of Information 

in Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR 2019-0201, on two counts 

of theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3), felonies of the fifth degree. On the same day, 

Appellant pled guilty to six counts of violating a protection order with a prior offense, in 

violation of R.C. 2919.27(A)(1), felonies of the fifth degree, in Case No. CR 2019-0072; 

one count of theft by deception with a value of $1,000.00-$7,500.00, in violation of R.C. 

2913.02(A)(3), a felony of the fifth degree, in Case No. CR2019-0105; and one count of 

theft by deception with a value of $1,000.00-$7,500.00, with an elderly victim, in violation 

of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3), a felony of the fourth degree, in Case No. CR2019-0144. 

{¶3} The parties made a joint recommendation Appellant be sentenced to six 

months in prison in each case, and the sentences be served consecutively to one another, 

for an aggregate prison term of 24 months. Appellant agreed to waive the findings 

necessary for the imposition of consecutive sentences. Appellant also agreed to make 

restitution in the amount of $9,265.00 in Case No. CR2019-0201; $5,000.00 in Case No. 

 

1 A Statement of the Facts underlying Appellant’s convictions is not necessary for our disposition of this 

Appeal. 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

3 

CR2019-0105; and $4,160.00 in Case No. CR2019-0144. The State agreed to nolle 

counts 7-55 of the indictment in Case No. CR2019-0072. 

{¶4} The trial court accepted Appellant’s guilty pleas and ordered a pre-sentence 

investigation be completed. Appellant appeared before the trial court for sentencing on 

May 20, 2019. After reviewing the pre-sentence investigation report which described 

Appellant’s extensive criminal history, the trial court indicated it was not inclined to follow 

the parties’ joint recommendation. The trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 

12 months in Case No. CR2019-0072. In Case No. CR2019-0105, the trial court 

sentenced Appellant to a term of 12 months and ordered him to pay restitution in the 

amount of $5,000.00. In Case No. CR2019-0144, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 

a term of 18 months and ordered him to pay $4,160.00 in restitution. In Case No. 

CR2019-0201, the trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 24 months and ordered 

Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $9,265.00. The trial court ordered the 

sentences in the four cases to run consecutively to one another for a total sentence of 66 

months. In addition to the restitution, the trial court also ordered Appellant to pay court 

costs. 

{¶5} It is from his convictions and sentences Appellant appeals, raising the 

following assignments of error: 

 I. THE COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING A SENTENCE WHICH WAS 

GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO APPELLANT’S CONDUCT AND 

NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTES GOVERNING FELONY 

SENTENCING. 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

4 

 II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING RESTITUTION 

WITHOUT FIRST CONSIDERING APPELLANT’S ABILITY TO PAY. 

 III. APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 

THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, 

AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE I, OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. 

I 

{¶6} In his first assignment of error, Appellant contends the trial court imposed a 

sentence which was grossly disproportionate to his conduct and did not comply with 

statutory sentencing mandates. We disagree. 

{¶7} “[A]n appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only 

if it determines by clear and convincing evidence”: (1) “the record does not support the 

trial court's findings under relevant statutes[,]” or (2) “the sentence is otherwise contrary 

to law.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Clear and convincing

evidence is evidence “which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or 

conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 

(1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly 

contrary to law where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 

2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post-release 

control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. 

Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-100, 2016-Ohio-2890, ¶ 8; State v. Julious, 12th 

Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-224, 2016-Ohio-4822, ¶ 8. Thus, this Court may “increase, 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

5 

reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds the 

sentence is (1) contrary to law or (2) unsupported by the record.” State v. Brandenburg,

146 Ohio St.3d 221, 2016-Ohio-2970, ¶ 1, citing Marcum at ¶ 7. 

{¶8} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.11(A), “[t]he overriding purposes of felony 

sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others, to punish 

the offender, and to promote the effective rehabilitation of 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 these 

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. R.C. 2929.11(A). 

Further, the sentence imposed shall be “commensurate with and not demeaning to the 

seriousness of the offender's conduct and its impact on the victim, and consistent with 

sentences imposed for similar crimes by similar offenders.” R.C. § 2929.11(B). 

{¶9} R.C. 2929.12 lists general factors which must be considered by the trial 

court in determining the sentence to be imposed for a felony, and gives detailed criteria 

which do not control the court's discretion but which must be considered for or against 

severity or leniency in a particular case. The trial court retains discretion to determine the 

most effective way to comply with the purpose and principles of sentencing as set forth in 

R.C. 2929.11. R.C. 2929.12. 

{¶10} In each of the four entries of sentence, the trial court indicated it had 

considered the record, all statements, any victim impact statement, the plea 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

6 

recommendation, as well as the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 

2929.11, and the balance of seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. 

{¶11} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court addressed Appellant as follows: 

 THE COURT: * * * I have received the presentence investigation, 

and I have reviewed it thoroughly. I’ve also received your letter, and I read 

it a couple of times. I’ve also received letters from the victims. 

 You put their entire security of their homes in an uproar. When 

someone’s at their residence, they want to be safe and secure and have 

that as their sanctuary, and you would be doing work there and leave it in 

turmoil for months at a time, and then just lie to them about it time and time 

again. I don’t think you – if your realized what you did, it’s even worse than 

I think it is. 

 Joint recommendation is for 24 months in prison. Again, with regard 

to the presentence investigation, in 2007 you went to prison for what, five 

years? 

 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. 

 THE COURT: And you were ordered to pay restitution in the amount 

of $34,382.82. None as paid on that, right? 

 THE DEFENDANT: Correct, Your Honor. 

 THE COURT: And that’s for theft by deception, theft by deception 

with an elderly victim, theft by deception passing bad checks, theft by 

deception, 10 different victims in that. 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

7 

 Also in 2008 in Muskingum County felony case, theft by deception, 

one year in prison, restitution ordered in that case of $12,090 and none paid. 

 Another case, 2008 in Muskingum County, theft by deception, a 

felony of the fourth degree, one year in prison consecutive to the others, 

restitution ordered, $24,837, and none paid. 

 Muskingum County, 2002, theft by deception, felony of the fourth 

degree; theft by deception, felony of the third degree; passing bad checks, 

passing bad checks, tampering with evidence, two years in prison. On this 

case, restitution is ordered, $123,676.54, none paid, right? 

 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. 

 THE COURT: And your misdemeanor record, 2019, this year, you 

were convicted of theft by deception at Wal-Mart on Maple Avenue where 

you picked up a Dremel tool and took it back and tried to get money out of 

it as you’re returning the Dremel tool that you just picked up off the shelf, 

right? 

 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. 

 THE COURT: That’s what you did. December 2018, petty theft. 

Went in to Lowe’s, filled a cart with merchandise, took it to customer service 

and returned the items using a receipt from July. You just did that, didn’t 

you? 

 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. 

 THE COURT: Ripley, West Virginia, 2017, petty larceny, sound 

right? 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

8 

 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. 

 THE COURT: 2004, passing bad checks, assault, domestic violence, 

criminal damaging. This is your letter you wrote me. I truly am sorry and 

regretful to all I have affected in this situation and assure it will not happen 

again. 

 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. 

 THE COURT: But nothing in your life – you were just stealing from 

Lowe’s and Wal-Mart within the last few months. I do wish there was 

another alternative other than prison, you wrote that. 

 I read the letters by the victims. Just time and time again you have 

lied. Time and time again our life is in an upheaval because you left stuff 

messed up, man. And how many years have you been in prison in your 

adult life? 

 THE DEFENDANT: Eight, Your Honor. 

 THE COURT: Didn’t change a thing, did it? I mean, did it? 

 THE DEFENDANT: It didn’t, Your Honor. 

 THE COURT: Came out, did the same thing, maybe worse. I’m not

inclined to follow the joint recommendation in this case * * * 

 Transcript of May 20, 2019 Sentencing Hearing at 9-12. 

{¶12} Appellant points to several factors which weigh in favor of the trial court 

imposing the jointly recommended sentence of 24 months. First, Appellant notes he is 

48 years old and, as he ages, his risk of recidivism decreases according to statistics. 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

9 

Appellant continues the victims did not suffered physical harm as a result of the offenses 

(R.C. 2929.12(B)(2)); he did not hold a position of trust in the community and his 

occupation did not obligate him to prevent the offenses (R.C. 2929.12(B)(3) and (4)); his 

relationships with the victims did not facilitate the commission of the offenses (R.C. 

2929.12(B)(6)); he did not commit the offenses for hire or as part of organized criminal 

activity (R.C. 2929.12(B)(7)); and he was not motivated by prejudice(R.C. 2929.12(B)(8)) 

. Appellant adds he openly expressed his remorse and accepted responsibility for his 

behavior. Appellant maintains a lengthy prison term will prevent him from becoming 

gainfully employed and make the payment of restitution more difficult. 

{¶13} Upon review of the record, we find Appellant’s sentence was not “grossly 

disproportionate” to his conduct and was in compliance with the statutory guidelines for 

felony sentencing. Appellant has an extensive criminal history, has not responded 

favorably to criminal sanctions, and has failed to pay any restitution in the past. Despite 

multiple convictions and serving a total of 8 years in prison, Appellant continued to engage 

in the same pattern of criminal behavior. We do not find by clear and convincing evidence 

“that the record does not support the sentencing court's findings,” or “that the sentence is 

otherwise contrary to law.” R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a)-(b). 

{¶14} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled. 

II 

{¶15} In his second assignment of error, Appellant submits the trial court erred in 

ordering him to pay restitution without considering his present and future ability to pay. 

{¶16} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.18(A)(1), a trial court may order an offender to pay 

restitution to the victim of the crime in an amount based on the victim's economic loss. 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

10 

However, R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) requires the court to consider “the offender's present and 

future ability to pay the amount of the sanction or fine” prior to imposing a financial 

sanction. 

{¶17} This Court has “previously observed while the better practice is for a trial 

court to explain on the record it considered an offender's financial circumstances, courts 

have consistently held a trial court need not explicitly state in its judgment it considered a 

defendant's ability to pay a financial sanction.” State v. Eblin, 5th Dist. Muskingum App. 

No. CT2019-0037, 2020-Ohio-810, ¶28 (Citation omitted). “Rather, courts look to the 

totality of the record to see if this requirement has been satisfied.” Id. (Citation omitted). 

“A court complies with Ohio law if the record shows the court considered a pre-sentence 

investigation report providing all pertinent financial information regarding an offender's 

ability to pay restitution.” Id. (Citation omitted). 

{¶18} At the change of plea hearing, the Prosecutor advised the trial court, as part 

of the joint recommendation, Appellant agreed to pay restitution in the amount of 

$5,000.00 in Case No. CR2019-0105, $4,160.00 in Case No. CR2019-0144, and 

$9,265.00 in Case No. CR2019-0201. The trial court conducted a Crim. 11 colloquy with 

Appellant and specifically asked him if, as part of the joint recommendation, he agreed to 

pay the aforementioned amounts in the respective cases. Appellant answered 

affirmatively. 

{¶19} “If there is a plea agreement, the trial court may satisfy its burden to consider 

a defendant's ability to pay by asking the defendant if he understands that the restitution 

amount is part of the sentence.” State v. Demeter, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107252, 2018-

Ohio-5361, ¶ 8, (Citations omitted). In this case, Appellant affirmed during the plea 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

11 

colloquy he understood restitution to the victims was part of the joint recommendation. 

Accordingly, we find the trial court satisfied its burden to consider Appellant’s ability to 

pay restitution pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(5). 

{¶20} In addition to its position the trial court properly considered Appellant’s 

ability to pay restitution, the State submits, pursuant to Article I, Section 10a of the Ohio 

Constitution, known as Marsy’s Law, the victims are “entitled to full and timely restitution, 

regardless of the offender’s ability to pay, or whether the trial court considered their ability 

to pay.” Brief of Appellee at 8. 

{¶21} In State v. Queen, 3rd Dist. Logan App. No. 8-19-41, 2020-Ohio-618, the 

Third District Court of Appeals recognized the potential ambiguity between Marsy’s Law, 

and R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) and R.C. 2929.19(B)(5): 

 “[O]n February 5, 2018, the amendment to Article I, Section 10a of 

the Ohio Constitution, known as Marsy's Law, became effective.” State v. 

Jones, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190039, 2020-Ohio-81, ¶ 9. Under this 

provision, victims have a series of rights that are “to be protected in a 

manner no less vigorous than the rights afforded to the accused.” Article I, 

Section 10a of the Ohio Constitution. One of these rights is “to full and timely 

restitution from the person who committed the criminal offense or delinquent 

act against the victim * * *.” Id. at (A)(7). The language in R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) 

gives trial courts the option to impose restitution against a criminal 

defendant as a financial sanction. It is not clear how the language of Marsy's 

Law, which appears to give a victim the right to restitution, interacts with 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

12 

R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) or R.C. 2929.19(B)(5). In particular, it is not clear how 

the defendant's statutory right to have his ability to pay considered under 

R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) interacts with the victim's constitutional right to 

restitution under Article I, Section 10a(A)(7). Id. at footnote 1. 

 The Queen Court determined, “In this case, however, the 

defendant's statutory right and the victim's constitutional right are not in 

conflict because we have determined that the defendant has the ability to 

pay and that the trial court did not err in awarding the victim restitution. Thus, 

our ‘ability to pay’ analysis from R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) does not interfere with 

any right to restitution that the victims have. In the absence of such a 

conflict, we do not need to further consider the effect that Marsy's Law has 

on the operation of R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) or R.C. 2929.19(B)(5).” Id. 

{¶22} Like the Queen Court, we find Appellant’s statutory right and the victims’ 

constitutional rights are not in conflict in this case as the trial court considered Appellant’s 

ability to pay by asking Appellant if he understood and agreed to pay restitution as part of 

the joint recommendation. 

{¶23} Based upon the foregoing, Appellant’s second assignment of error is 

overruled. 

III 

{¶24} In his final assignment of error, Appellant raises a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Specifically, Appellant maintains trial counsel was ineffective for 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

13 

failing to object to the trial court’s order of restitution and failing to request the trial court 

waive the imposition of court costs. 

{¶25} Our standard of review for ineffective assistance claims is set forth in 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Ohio 

adopted this standard in the case of State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 

(1989). These cases require a two-pronged analysis in reviewing a claim for ineffective 

assistance of counsel. First, we must determine whether counsel's assistance was 

ineffective; i.e., whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of 

reasonable representation and was violative of any of his or her essential duties to the 

client. If we find ineffective assistance of counsel, we must then determine whether or not 

the defense was actually prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness such that the reliability 

of the outcome of the trial is suspect. This requires a showing there is a reasonable 

probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error, the outcome of the trial would have 

been different. Id.

{¶26} Trial counsel is entitled to a strong presumption all decisions fall within the 

wide range of reasonable professional assistance. State v. Sallie, 81 Ohio St.3d 673, 675, 

693 N.E.2d 267 (1998). In addition, the United States Supreme Court and the Ohio 

Supreme Court have held a reviewing court “need not determine whether counsel's 

performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as 

a result of the alleged deficiencies.” Bradley at 143, 538 N.E.2d 373, quoting Strickland

at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Even debatable trial tactics and strategies do not constitute 

ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 402 N.E.2d 1189 

(1980). 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

14 

{¶27} Assuming, arguendo, Appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 

object to the trial court’s order of restitution, we find Appellant cannot established he was 

prejudiced as the result of counsel’s ineffectiveness. As discussed in Assignment of Error 

II, supra, Appellant agreed to pay restitution as part of the joint recommendation, and the 

trial court considered Appellant’s ability to pay by confirming he understood and agreed 

to pay restitution as part of the joint recommendation. 

{¶28} We now turn to Appellant’s assertion trial counsel was ineffective for failing 

to object to the trial court’s imposition of court costs. 

{¶29} R.C. 2947.23, which governs judgment for costs, provides, in pertinent part: 

“In all criminal cases, including violations of ordinances, the judge or magistrate shall 

include in the sentence the costs of prosecution * * * and render a judgment against the 

defendant for such costs.” R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a). However, subsection (C) permits the 

trial court to retain jurisdiction “to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of 

prosecution * * * at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter.” Therefore, a trial 

court has discretion to waive the payment of court costs whether a defendant is indigent 

or not. 

{¶30} Appellant has failed to present any additional facts or circumstances from 

those he did with respect to his argument relative to the restitution orders to support a 

finding there was a reasonable probability the trial court would have sustained an 

objection to the imposition of court costs. 

{¶31} As this Court noted in State v. Eblin, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-

0036, 2020-Ohio-1216, “[w]e considered, as part of this analysis, whether the trial court's 

denial of such a motion would have been an abuse of discretion and find nothing within 
Muskingum County, Case Nos. CT2019-0046, CT2019-0047, CT2019-0048, & 

 CT2019-0049 

15 

the facts and circumstances of this case that would lead us to find that a failure to grant 

the motion would constitute an abuse.” Id. at ¶ 21. Accord, State v. Stevens, 5th Dist. 

Muskingum Nos. CT2019-0059 & CT2019-0060, 2020-Ohio-1300. 

{¶32} Because Appellant cannot establish there was a reasonable probability the 

outcome would have been different had trial counsel objected, we find Appellant was not 

prejudiced by counsel’s failure to do so. 

{¶33} Appellant’s third assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶34} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is 

affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, P.J. 

Wise, John, J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur