[Cite as State v. Gault, 2018-Ohio-1682.]

1 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LOGAN COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 8-17-31 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER GAULT, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. CR17-06-0187 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: April 30, 2018 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Eric J. Allen for Appellant 

 Eric C. Stewart for Appellee 
Case No. 8-17-31 

-2- 

SHAW, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Christopher Gault (“Gault”), appeals the 

September 12, 2017, judgment of the Logan County Common Pleas Court 

sentencing him to serve a 6-year prison term after he pled no contest to, and was 

found guilty of, Aggravated Vehicular Assault in violation of R.C. 

2903.08(A)(1)(a)/(B)(1)(a), a felony of the second degree, and OVI in violation of 

R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), a misdemeanor of the first degree. On appeal, Gault argues 

that the record did not support his sentence. 

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On June 10, 2017, at approximately 11:25 p.m., Gault was entering US 

33 from County Road 270 in Logan County when he drove into the path of an 

oncoming motorcycle. The motorcycle operator hit the side of Gault’s vehicle and 

suffered serious injuries, including, inter alia, a broken vertebra. Deputies that 

responded to the scene met with Gault and found him to have very bloodshot, glassy 

eyes and his speech was very slurred. Gault admitted to drinking alcohol and he did 

poorly on field sobriety tests. Witnesses at the scene indicated that Gault had pulled 

into the path of the motorcycle. 

{¶3} On June 14, 2017, Gault was indicted for Driving Under Suspension in 

violation of R.C. 4510.11, a first degree misdemeanor, Failure to Yield in violation 

of R.C. 4511.43, a minor misdemeanor, OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), 
Case No. 8-17-31 

-3- 

a first degree misdemeanor, and Aggravated Vehicular Assault in violation of R.C. 

2903.08(A)(1)(a)/(B)(1)(a), a felony of the second degree. Gault originally pled not 

guilty to the charges. 

{¶4} On August 10, 2017, Gault entered into a written, negotiated plea 

agreement wherein he agreed to plead no contest to Aggravated Vehicular Assault 

and OVI as indicted, and in exchange the State agreed to dismiss the remaining 

charges against Gault. The parties also agreed to jointly recommend a mandatory 

4-year prison term. 

{¶5} The trial court engaged in a Criminal Rule 11 colloquy with Gault, 

determining that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. As part of the 

colloquy, the trial court ensured that Gault understood that the court was not bound 

by the parties’ sentencing recommendation. Afterward, the trial court had the State 

recite a factual basis for the crimes, found Gault guilty of Aggravated Vehicular 

Assault and OVI as charged, and set sentencing for a later date. 

{¶6} On September 12, 2017, Gault’s case proceeded to sentencing. The 

State and Gault’s attorney reiterated their recommended prison term. Then, the trial 

court recited portions of Gault’s criminal history, including multiple felony 

convictions, some of which dealt with drugs and alcohol. 

{¶7} The trial court indicated that due to the nature of the crime, the serious 

injuries to the victim, and Gault’s criminal history, it would not impose the 
Case No. 8-17-31 

-4- 

recommended prison term. Gault was sentenced to serve a 6-year prison term on 

the Aggravated Vehicular Assault charge and a 30-day jail term for the OVI, 

consecutive to each other, with credit for time served. A judgment entry 

memorializing Gault’s sentence was filed that same day. It is from this judgment 

that Gault appeals, asserting the following assignment of error for our review. 

Assignment of Error No. 1 

The record in this matter does not support the imposition of 

consecutive sentences pursuant to state law R.C. 2929.14.

{¶8} In the statement of the assignment of error, Gault argues that the record 

does not support the imposition of consecutive sentences. However, in the body of 

the argument, Gault seems to be indicating that the trial court’s imposition of a 6-

year prison term was not supported by the record. The body of his argument 

contains no actual claims with regard to consecutive sentences. He appears to be 

more concerned with the trial court’s deviation from the joint sentencing 

recommendation of the parties. 

Analysis

{¶9} To the extent that Gault argues that the record does not support 

consecutive sentences here, R.C. 2929.41(B)(3) permits a jail or prison term for a 

misdemeanor violation of R.C. 4511.19 to be served consecutively to a prison term 

for a violation of R.C. 2903.08 when specified by the trial court. Revised Code 

2929.41(B)(3) reads, “A jail term or sentence of imprisonment imposed for a 
Case No. 8-17-31 

-5- 

misdemeanor violation of * * * 4511.19 of the Revised Code shall be served 

consecutively to a prison term that is imposed for a felony violation of * * * 2903.08 

* * * when the trial court specifies that it is to be served consecutively. The trial 

court specified as much here. See also State v. Earley, 145 Ohio St.3d 281, 2015-

Ohio-4615 (“A trial court may impose cumulative sentences for aggravated 

vehicular assault * * *operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 

* * *[.]”). 

{¶10} As for the body of Gault’s argument, which seems to relate to the trial 

court’s decision to deviate from the jointly recommended sentence, a trial court is 

not bound by an agreed recommended sentence by the State and a defendant. State 

v. Woodrey, 12th Dist. Claremont No. CA2010-01-008, 2010-Ohio-4079, ¶ 10. This 

was made clear to Gault at the change-of-plea hearing and he indicated that he 

understood. 

{¶11} With this principle in mind, the only remaining questions before us are 

whether Gault’s sentence was unsupported by the record or whether it was clearly 

and convincingly contrary to law pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G). It is not disputed 

that the sentences ordered fall within the permissible statutory range, therefore they 

are not contrary to law. 

{¶12} As to whether Gault’s prison sentence was supported by the record, at 

the sentencing hearing, the trial court identified a number of factors supporting its 
Case No. 8-17-31 

-6- 

deviation from the jointly recommended sentence. The trial court cited Gault’s 

criminal history, which included multiple prior felony convictions and a prior OVI. 

The trial court noted that Gault’s ORAS score placed him in the level of a high 

likelihood to reoffend. In addition, the trial court noted the serious, “life-altering” 

physical harm that was caused to the victim by Gault’s callous action. The victim 

had multiple broken bones, bruises, and had to be in a “halo” device to stabilize his 

head for an extended period of time. The victim also had a significant ongoing 

recovery period. 

{¶13} The trial court indicated that it had considered all of the requisite 

statutes and the principles and purposes of sentencing when it deviated from the 

jointly recommended prison term. While Gault may argue that his prior felony 

offenses were long ago and that he had shown remorse for his accident, we cannot 

find that, based on the record before us, the trial court’s sentence was clearly and 

convincingly contrary to law. Therefore, Gault’s assignment of error is overruled. 

Conclusion

{¶14} For the foregoing reasons Gault’s assignment of error is overruled and 

the judgment of the Logan County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed 

ZIMMERMAN and PRESTON, J.J., concur. 

/jlr