State v. Gallant

2025 Ohio 3182

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 3-25-05
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Gallant, 2025-Ohio-3182.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 3-25-05 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

GARY WAYNE GALLANT, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 24-CR-0147

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: September 8, 2025

APPEARANCES:

William T. Cramer for Appellant

Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee Case No. 3-25-05

MILLER, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Gary Wayne Gallant (“Gallant”), appeals the

January 23, 2025 judgment of sentence of the Crawford County Court of Common

Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶2} On May 21, 2024, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted Gallant on

26 charges: Count One of aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C.

2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(c), a third-degree felony; Counts Two, Five, Six, Seven,

Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen of aggravated

trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(a), fourth-degree

felonies; Counts Three, Four, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty One,

Twenty Two, Twenty Three, Twenty Four, Twenty Five, and Twenty Six of having

weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), (B), third-degree

felonies; and Count Sixteen of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree felony. Counts Five through Sixteen included

firearm specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.141(A). At his arraignment, Gallant

entered not-guilty pleas to the counts in the indictment.

{¶3} On November 27, 2024, upon the motion of the State and with the

agreement of Gallant’s trial counsel, the trial court granted the State’s motion to

amend Counts Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Eleven from the original charge of

aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), fourth-degree

-2- Case No. 3-25-05

felonies, to trafficking in fentanyl-related compound in violation of R.C.

2925.03(A)(1), fifth-degree felonies.

{¶4} The parties appeared for a change-of-plea hearing on December 3,

2024. Pursuant to a negotiated-plea agreement, Gallant withdrew his not-guilty

pleas to Counts One through Twenty One without the associated firearm

specifications. In exchange, the State moved to dismiss the firearm specifications

and the remaining counts in the indictment. The trial court accepted Gallant’s pleas,

found him guilty thereof, and continued the matter for sentencing after the

preparation of a presentence investigation (“PSI”). The trial court filed its judgment

entry of conviction that same day.

{¶5} At the sentencing hearing on January 22, 2025, the trial court found that

Counts Three and Four and Counts Seventeen through Twenty One merged for

sentencing. The State elected to have Gallant sentenced on Counts Three and

Seventeen, respectively. The trial court then sentenced Gallant to 12 months in

prison on each of the 16 counts for an aggregate term of 192 months in prison. The

following day, the trial court filed its judgment entries of sentence.1

{¶6} On January 28, 2025, Gallant filed a notice of appeal. He raises a single

assignment of error for our review.

1 On January 23, 2025, the trial court filed both the initial judgment entry of sentence and a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry memorializing the dismissal of Counts 22 through 26 in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

-3- Case No. 3-25-05

Assignment of Error

By clear and convincing evidence, the record does not support the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for all of the drug-related counts.

{¶7} In his assignment of error, Gallant argues that his sentence is contrary

to law because the trial court’s consecutive-sentencing findings were not supported

by the record.

Standard of Review

{¶8} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may reverse a sentence

“only if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not

support the trial court’s findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is

otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Clear and

convincing evidence is that “‘which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a

firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” Id. at ¶ 22,

quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

Relevant Authority

{¶9} “Except as provided in . . . division (C) of section 2929.14, . . . a prison

term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment shall be served concurrently with any

other prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of this

state, another state, or the United States.” R.C. 2929.41(A). R.C. 2929.14(C)

provides:

-4- Case No. 3-25-05

(4) [T]he court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following:

(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense.

(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.

(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.

{¶10} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires a trial court to make specific findings on

the record when imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Hites, 2012-Ohio-1892,

¶ 11 (3d Dist.). Specifically, the trial court must find: (1) consecutive sentences are

necessary to either protect the public or punish the offender, (2) the sentences would

not be disproportionate to the offense committed; and (3) one of the factors in R.C.

2929.14(C)(4)(a), (b), or (c) applies. Id.

{¶11} The trial court must state the required findings at the sentencing

hearing prior to imposing consecutive sentences and incorporate those findings into

its sentencing entry. State v. Sharp, 2014-Ohio-4140, ¶ 50 (3d Dist.), citing State v.

-5- Case No. 3-25-05

Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 29. A trial court “has no obligation to state reasons to

support its findings” and is not “required to give a talismanic incantation of the

words of the statute, provided that the necessary findings can be found in the record

and are incorporated into the sentencing entry.” Bonnell at ¶ 37.

{¶12} Furthermore, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), appellate court may

only “modify or vacate consecutive sentences if it clearly and convincingly finds

that the record does not support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings.”

State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 22.

Analysis: Consecutive Sentencing

{¶13} Gallant does not argue that the trial court failed to make the requisite

consecutive-sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Rather, he contends the

record does not support the trial court’s findings.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated:

The one thing I do want to discuss about is, that under 2929.14, there’s no doubt that consecutive sentences are appropriate here. The Court finds that consecutive multiple prison terms are necessary to protect the public from future crime, to punish the offender, they’re not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and the danger the offender possess to the public. Quite frankly, he had firearms, a tremendous amount of firearms, and he was trafficking in drugs, methamphetamine I believe, there was also some fentanyl, those drugs are extremely dangerous and posed a significant risk to people in our community. [Number] 1, they could overdose on those drugs, people buy them; [Number] 2, giving someone methamphetamine it’s like creating a terrible situation where that person can hurt themselves or others and we’ve seen enough cases where people have been involved in violent matters because they were under the influence of methamphetamine. I do find that under

-6- Case No. 3-25-05

2929.14(C)(4)(a)(b) and (c), I find that those apply, (a) doesn’t apply, however, (b) does. At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct. Also under (c), the offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crimes by the offender.

(Jan. 22, 2025 Tr. 15-17). The trial court memorialized those findings in its

sentencing entry. Accordingly, the record reflects that the trial court made the

appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings before imposing consecutive sentences and

incorporated those findings into its sentencing entry.

{¶14} Nonetheless, Gallant argues that the trial court’s finding that

consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public was not supported by the

record. Specifically, Gallant contends that his health is “poor” and that the crimes

that he committed were not violent. He also asserts that although his criminal

history is “lengthy,” he has successfully completed probation once before, and is,

therefore, capable of doing so again. We do not find Gallant’s arguments to be well-

taken.

{¶15} Our review of the PSI indicates that Gallant’s criminal history is very

lengthy. He has a number of drug-related offenses, spanning decades, including

multiple possession-of-drugs offenses in recent years. Furthermore, although

Gallant did once successfully complete probation in 2003, after the completion of

-7- Case No. 3-25-05

his probation he went on to be convicted of a plethora of additional crimes, including

drug-related offenses. Moreover, although Gallant’s health may be “poor,” it has

apparently not stopped him from engaging in criminal activity. Additionally, the

details of the instant offense indicate that Gallant was involved in an extensive drug-

trafficking enterprise involving dangerous drugs and firearms. Accordingly, after

reviewing the information the trial court had available to it at the time of sentencing,

specifically the PSI, we do not find that the trial court’s consecutive-sentencing

findings were clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

{¶16} Gallant’s assignment of error is overruled.

{¶17} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Crawford County

Court of Common Pleas.

ZIMMERMAN and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.

-8- Case No. 3-25-05

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is

overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby

rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the

judgment for costs.

It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s

judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.

27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the

proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.

Mark C. Miller, Judge

William R. Zimmerman, Judge

John R. Willamowski, Judge

DATED: /jlm

-9-