[Cite as State v. Bryan, 2018-Ohio-2508.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsMICHAEL BRYAN 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case No. CT2017-0053 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court 

of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2016-0234 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 21, 2018 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

D. MICHAEL HADDOX ERIC ALLEN 

Prosecuting Attorney 4605 Morse Rd., Suite 201 

GERALD V. ANDERSON, II Gahanna, OH 43230 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

27 North Fifth St., P.O. Box 189 

Zanesville, OH 43702-0189 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0053 2

Hoffman, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Michael Bryan appeals the judgment entered by the Muskingum 

County Common Pleas Court resentencing him to an aggregate term of ten years 

incarceration for five counts of trafficking in drugs. Appellee is the state of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} Appellant was involved in multiple drug transactions with a confidential 

informant working with the Central Ohio Drug Enforcement Task Force between 

November 16, 2015, and April 6, 2016, culminating in a raid of his residence on April 7, 

2016. 

{¶3} Appellant was indicted on one count of trafficking drugs (cocaine) and four 

counts of trafficking drugs (methamphetamine) in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1). Two of 

these offenses were elevated due to school vicinity specifications. On September 21, 

2016, appellant pled guilty to the five counts of trafficking in drugs and appellee dismissed 

the two school specifications. There was no joint recommendation as to Appellant's 

sentence. Appellant waived a pre-sentence investigation and the trial court sentenced 

Appellant following the plea hearing. Appellant signed a plea of guilty on September 21, 

2016, acknowledging even if consecutive sentences were not mandatory, they may be 

imposed by the court, and further, Appellee would be recommending an aggregate ten 

year sentence. 

{¶4} At the sentencing hearing, Appellant requested an aggregate four year 

sentence, while Appellee requested an aggregate ten year sentence. Appellee argued 

 

1 A rendition of the facts is unnecessary for our resolution of this appeal. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0053 3

Appellant's pattern of conduct was such that no single sentence would adequately punish 

him or protect the public. 

{¶5} The trial court stated at the sentencing hearing, “after reviewing the 

defendant's record, considering the seriousness and recidivism factors, and the purposes 

and principles statutes, this Court finds that it would demean the seriousness of the 

offense and not adequately protect the public to place the defendant on community 

control.” The trial court then found a sentence of twenty-four months on each count was 

appropriate. The trial court continued, “said sentences shall be served consecutive to 

each other as not to demean the seriousness of the offenses and to protect the public, as 

concurrent sentences would not adequately address the crimes committed herein.” 

{¶6} The trial court issued a judgment entry of conviction on October 21, 2016. 

As to consecutive sentences, the judgment entry stated the “periods of incarceration 

imposed herein shall be served consecutive to one another for an aggregate prison 

sentence of ten (10) years.” Appellant filed an appeal to this Court, arguing the trial court 

erred in imposing consecutive sentences without finding any of the three factors set forth 

in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) applied. We agreed, and reversed and remanded for resentencing. 

State v. Bryan, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2016-0056, 2017-Ohio-1532. 

{¶7} On remand, the court imposed the same sentence, finding at least two of 

the offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct and the harm 

caused by two or more of the multiple offenses was so great or unusual that no single 

prison term adequately reflects the seriousness of his conduct, and his history of criminal 

conduct demonstrates consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0053 4

future crime by Appellant. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (b) and (c). It is from the June 9, 2017 

judgment of sentencing Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error: 

 “THE RECORD IN THIS MATTER DOES NOT SUPPORT THE 

IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES PURSUANT TO STATE 

LAW R.C. 2929.14.” 

{¶8} Although couched as a challenge to the imposition of consecutive 

sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14, Appellant argues the offenses are allied offenses of 

similar import, and should merge pursuant to R.C. 2941.25(A). Appellant failed to raise 

this issue on direct appeal. The doctrine of res judicata bars a convicted defendant who 

was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an 

appeal from that judgment, any issue which was raised or could have been raised on 

direct appeal. E.g., State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 176, 226 N.E.2d 104, 106 (1967). 

Because Appellant, who was represented by counsel, failed to raise this issue on direct 

appeal, it is now barred by res judicata. 

{¶9} The assignment of error is overruled. 
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0053 5

{¶10} The judgment of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, J. 

Wise, John, P.J. and 

Baldwin, J. concur