[Cite as State v. Geballa, 2016-Ohio-3321.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 103353

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

ROBERT GEBALLA, JR.

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-15-594775-A 

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Kilbane, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 9, 2016 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

Raymond R. Froelich 

2100 Salem Parkway 

Westlake, Ohio 44145 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Carl Sullivan 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

Justice Center - 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Robert Geballa, Jr., appeals his conviction and eight-year aggregate 

sentence imposed on nine counts of pandering of sexually oriented matter, 29 counts of 

the illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance, and one count of 

possessing criminal tools. Geballa had over 400 pictures and one video depicting child 

pornography on his computer. All the prison terms were imposed to be served 

concurrently. Geballa claims his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel 

for failing to provide mitigating factors at sentencing and the trial court erred by failing to 

make findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.11. We find no merit to the arguments presented. 

{¶2} Geballa’s first assignment of error — that his attorney stood silent at 

sentencing and failed to present mitigating evidence — is contrary to the record. As 

noted by the state, Geballa’s counsel did in fact present mitigating factors before the 

sentences were imposed, through the presentence investigation report and the reading of a 

social worker’s recommended plan that would enable Geballa to avoid prison while 

complying with the law. In addition, even if we presumed a deficient performance based 

on that argument, Geballa has only addressed the first prong of the standard of review. 

State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297, 2009-Ohio-2961, 911 N.E.2d 242, ¶ 98, citing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (the 

appellant must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficient 

performance prejudiced the defendant so as to deprive him of a fair trial). Geballa has 
not demonstrated, let alone argued, that the deficient performance deprived him of a fair 

proceeding. Nothing in the record demonstrates that more mitigation material, if any 

existed, would have resulted in a lesser sentence. The failure to prove either prong is 

fatal. State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 389, 2000-Ohio-448, 721 N.E.2d 52. As a 

result, we must overrule his first assignment of error. 

{¶3} Finally, we summarily overrule the second assignment of error, in which 

Geballa claims the trial court erred by not making any findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 

or by imposing a maximum sentence without considering the statutory criteria, including 

mitigating factors. Findings are not required pursuant to R.C. 2929.11. State v. Bement, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99914, 2013-Ohio-5437, ¶ 14 (findings for a maximum sentence 

are not statutorily required). Further, at the sentencing hearing and again in the 

sentencing entry, the trial court expressly indicated it considered all sentencing factors as 

required by law, and as we already noted, the trial court fully considered the mitigating 

factors presented. The second assignment of error is not based on the record or relevant 

law and must be overruled. 

{¶4} The conviction is affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. The 

court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having 
been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court 

for execution of sentence. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR