[Cite as State v. Goler, 2013-Ohio-661.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsMICHAEL R. GOLER 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

Case No. 12-CA-64 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Licking County Court of 

Common Pleas, Case No. 09CR00119 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 22, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

EARL L. FROST SIOBHAN R. CLOVIS 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Reese, Pyle, Drake & Meyer, P.L.L. 

Licking County Prosecutor's Office 36 N. Second Street 

20 S. Second St., 4th Floor P.O. Box 919 

Newark, Ohio 43055 Newark, Ohio 43058-0919 
Licking County, Case No. 12-CA-64 2

Hoffman, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Michael R. Goler appeals the sentence entered by 

the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} On May 21, 2009, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of 

trafficking in crack cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(CC), and one count of 

permitting drug abuse, in violation of R.C. 2925.13. All of the transactions occurred at 

Appellant’s residence, which is located within 990 feet of a school. Accordingly, 

Appellant’s felony convictions include specifications the crimes occurred within 1000 

feet of a school. 

{¶3} The trial court accepted the plea, and convicted Appellant of the charges. 

The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing on July 2, 2009. Appellant was 

sentenced to five years of community control, and was informed if he violated the terms 

of the community control, he would then be sentenced to eighteen months on each 

count of trafficking, with the sentences to be served consecutively, and six months in jail 

for the misdemeanor, to run concurrently with the other sentences. 

{¶4} Appellant violated the terms of his community control, and, on July 5, 

2012, the trial court revoked his probation. On the same date, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to eighteen months on each count of trafficking, consecutive to each other, 

and six months in jail for the misdemeanor, to run concurrently. 

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

 

1

 A recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal. 
Licking County, Case No. 12-CA-64 3

{¶6} “I. IT WAS ERROR TO SENTENCE MR. GOLER, A NONVIOLENT 

DRUG OFFENDER WHO WAS INITIALLY SENTENCED TO COMMUNITY CONTROL, 

TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WITHOUT PROVIDING THE STATUTORILY 

REQUIRED RATIONALE THEREFOR.” 

I. 

{¶7} In the sole assignment of error, Appellant maintains the trial court erred in 

imposing consecutive sentences without providing the statutorily required rationale for 

imposing consecutive sentences. 

{¶8} As set forth in the Statement of the Case, supra, Appellant was initially 

sentenced on June 15, 2009. The sentencing occurred prior to the effective date of H.B. 

86, September 30, 2011. H.B. 86 is not retroactive. State v. Latham, 5th 12CA00004, 

2012-Ohio-4516; State v. Davis, 5th CT2011-0033, 2012-Ohio-4922. 

{¶9} In State v. Little, Fifth App. Dist. No. CT2011–0057, 2012–Ohio–2895, this 

Court held, 

{¶10} “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. 

{¶11} “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.
Licking County, Case No. 12-CA-64 4

{¶12} “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. 

{¶13} “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.” 

{¶14} As in Little, H.B. 86 is not applicable to Appellant's sentencing herein; 

therefore, pursuant to Kalish, supra, we find the trial court properly considered the 

principles and factors necessary in imposing the sentence rendered. We find the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant to the term imposed. 

{¶15} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶16} The sentence entered by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is 

affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, J. 

Delaney, P.J. and 

Farmer, J. concur s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER 
Licking County, Case No. 12-CA-64 5

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

MICHAEL R. GOLER : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 12-CA-64 

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

entered by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant. 

 s/ William B. Hoffman _________________

 HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN 

 s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________

 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

 s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________

 HON. SHEILA G. FARMER