[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.
Judgment Affirmed
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-
