[Cite as State v. Little, 2012-Ohio-2895.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsANTHONY S. LITTLE 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Case No. CT2011-0057 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County 

Common Pleas Court, Case No. 

 CR2011-0077 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 25, 2012 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

ROBERT L. SMITH DAVID A. SAMS 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Box 40 

27 North Fifth Street W. Jefferson, Ohio 43162 

Zanesville, Ohio 43701 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0057 2

Hoffman, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Anthony S. Little appeals his sentence entered by the 

Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

{¶2} On March 23, 2011, Appellant was indicted for rape of a child under the 

age of thirteen, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), a felony of the first degree. 

{¶3} On September 19, 2011, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to an amended 

charge of sexual battery, in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(1), a felony of the third degree. 

Pursuant to the plea agreement, the State agreed to make no recommendation as to 

sentencing. 

{¶4} On October 24, 2011, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing, 

during which the trial court ordered Appellant serve a mandatory prison term of sixty 

months. The court also designated Appellant a Tier II sexual offender. 

{¶5} Appellant now appeals, assigning as error: 

{¶6} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IMPOSING A MAXIMUM 

SENTENCE UPON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CONTRARY TO THE OVERRIDING 

PURPOSES OF FELONY SENTENCING UNDER HB 86.” 

{¶7} Appellant asserts the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence 

contrary to the minimum sentence presumption established in H.B. 86, in the absence 

of R.C. 2929.12 factors which would overcome the presumption. As a result, Appellant 

argues his sentence is contrary to the newly enacted H.B. 86; therefore, must be 

vacated and he should be resentenced. We disagree. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0057 3

{¶8} H.B. 86 became effective September 30, 2011, sixteen days after the 

alleged offense, but prior to the sentencing herein. The enacted legislation reads at 

Section 4, 

{¶9} "The amendments to sections 926.99, 1333.99, 1707.99, 1716.99, 

2909.03, 2909.05, 2909.11, 2913.02, 2913.03, 2913.04, 2913.11, 2913.21, 2913. 31, 

2913.32, 2913.34, 2913.40, 2913.401, 2913.42, 2913.421, 2913.43, 2913.45, 2913.46, 

2913.47, 2913.48, 2913.49, 2913.51, 2913.61, 2915.05, 2917. 21, 2917.31, 2917.32, 

2921.13, 2921.41, 2923.31, and 2981.07, division (B) of section 2929.13, and division 

(A) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code that are made in this act apply to a person 

who commits an offense specified or penalized under those sections on or after the 

effective date of this section and to a person to whom division (B) of section 1.58 of the 

Revised Code makes the amendments applicable. 

{¶10} "The provisions of sections 926.99, 1333.99, 1707.99, 1716.99, 2909.03, 

2909.05, 2909.11, 2913.02, 2913.03, 2913.04, 2913.11, 2913.21, 2913.31, 2913. 32, 

2913.34, 2913.40, 2913.401, 2913.42, 2913.421, 2913.43, 2913.45, 2913.46, 2913.47, 

2913.48, 2913.49, 2913.51, 2913.61, 2915.05, 2917.21, 2917. 31, 2917.32, 2921.13, 

2921.41, 2923.31, and 2981.07 of the Revised Code in existence prior to the effective 

date of this section shall apply to a person upon whom a court imposed sentence prior 

to the effective date of this section for an offense specified or penalized under those 

sections. The amendments to sections 926.99, 1333.99, 1707.99, 1716.99, 2909.03, 

2909. 05, 2909.11, 2913.02, 2913.03, 2913.04, 2913.11, 2913.21, 2913.31, 2913.32, 

2913.34, 2913.40, 2913.401, 2913.42, 2913.421, 2913.43, 2913.45, 2913.46, 2913.47, 

2913.48, 2913.49, 2913.51, 2913.61, 2915.05, 2917.21, 2917.31, 2917. 32, 2921.13, 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0057 4

2921.41, 2923.31, and 2981.07 of the Revised Code that are made in this act do not 

apply to a person who upon whom a court imposed sentence prior to the effective date 

of this section for an offense specified or penalized under those sections." 

{¶11} As set forth above, Appellant entered a plea to sexual battery, in violation 

of R.C. 2907.03(A)(1). H.B. 86 did not amend or change the statute for which Appellant 

was convicted. Further, H.B. 86, Section 4 does not specifically include sexual battery 

as one of the offenses for which the legislation is to be applied retroactively. 

{¶12} Accordingly, we find Appellant's argument the trial court was required to 

comply with the requirements of H.B. 86 in issuing Appellant’s sentence herein is not 

well taken. 

{¶13} The Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008–

Ohio–4912 set forth a two step process for examining felony sentences. 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 this first step “is satisfied,” the second step requires the 

trial court's decision be “reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard .” Id.

{¶14} The relevant sentencing law at the time of sentencing herein was 

controlled by the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Foster, i.e. “ * * * trial courts 

have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no 

longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, 

consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences.” 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 30, 2006–Ohio–

856 at ¶ 100, 845 N.E.2d 470, 498. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0057 5

{¶15} Upon review of Appellant's sentence, the same is within the parameters 

for the offense and does not amount to an abuse of discretion. We find the record fails 

to demonstrate the trial court failed to give careful and substantial deliberation to the 

relevant statutory considerations. 

{¶16} Appellant's sentence in the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is 

affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Wise, J. concur 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 s/ John W. Wise _____________________

 HON. JOHN W. WISE 

 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2011-0057 6

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

ANTHONY S. LITTLE : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : Case No. CT2011-0057 

 For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, Appellant's sentence in the 

Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant. 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________

 HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

 s/ John W. Wise______________________

 HON. JOHN W. WISE