.]
COURT OF APPEALS
ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- :
:
RONALD L. CASLER : Case No. 20-COA-025
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas Case No. 20-CRI-063
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 19, 2021
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
CHRISTOPHER R. TUNNEL MATTHEW J. MALONE
AMY R. INZINA 10 East Main Street
110 Cottage Street Ashland, OH 44805
Ashland, OH 44805
Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-025 2
Wise, Earle, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Ronald L. Casler appeals the July 8, 2020 judgment
of conviction and sentence of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-
Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} A recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary for our resolution of this
appeal. On April 9, 2020, the Ashland Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Casler
with one count of rape and one count of sexual battery. Said offenses involved a minor
and were alleged to have occurred between November 27, 1995 and May 14, 1995.
{¶ 3} On May 21, 2020, Calser withdrew his previously entered pleas of not guilty
and entered a plea of guilty to one count of sexual battery. The state dismissed the rape
charge. Following a pre-sentence investigation the trial court sentenced Casler to a five-
year prison term.
{¶ 4} Casler filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for our
consideration. He raises one assignment of error as follows:
I
{¶ 5} "APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE
OHIO CONSTITUTION, BY HIS TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO FILE A MOTION TO
DISMISS APPELLANT'S CHARGES BASED ON THE STATE'S FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE APPELLANT WITHIN THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS."
Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-025 3
{¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, Casler argues because the statute of
limitations had expired by the time the state indicted him for rape and sexual battery, his
trial counsel should have filed a motion to dismiss. We disagree.
{¶ 7} To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
demonstrate: (1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., that counsel's performance fell
below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) that counsel's errors
prejudiced the defendant, i.e., a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the
result of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington,
.
{¶ 8} Before July 16, 2015, the statute of limitations for sexual battery was 20
years. On July 16, 2015, however, the statute of limitations for sexual battery increased
from 20 to 25 years. R.C. 2901.13(A)(4); 2015 H.B. No. 6. If prosecution would not have
been barred under the previous 20-year statute of limitations as of July 15, 2015, the
increase was retroactive. R.C. 2901.13(L).
{¶ 9} In this case, the state would not have been barred under the prior statute of
limitations as of July 15, 2015. The sexual battery took place from November 27, 1995
through May 14, 1996. Using the November date, 19 years and eight months had elapsed
as of July 15, 2015. Thus, the 25-year statute of limitation applies here. Casler was
indicted on April 9, 2020, 24 years and 5 months from the time of the sexual battery, well
within the 25-year statute of limitations.
Ashland County, Case No. 20-COA-025 4
{¶ 10} Because Casler was indicted within the applicable statute of limitations, a
motion filed by counsel seeking to dismiss the charges based on charges brought outside
the statute of limitations would have been denied. Counsel's performance therefore, was
not deficient.
{¶ 11} The sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 12} The judgment of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By Wise, Earle, J.
Baldwin, P.J. and
Gwin, J. concur.
EEW/rw
