State v. Garey, 2019 Ohio 4525

Defendant Eric Ray Garey lived with the victims’ family at a campground; on Aug. 15, 2016 a child (E.H.) reported possible sexual contact and her sister (T.L.) later disclosed a separate incident.
T.L. (born 2007) testified that Garey asked her to rub his genitals and placed her hand on his clothed private area; she said she was too scared to report it earlier.
An Aug. 2017 indictment charged Garey with eight counts (one count of gross sexual imposition as to T.L.; seven counts relating to E.H.).
A jury convicted Garey of one count of gross sexual imposition (the count involving T.L.) and acquitted him on the counts involving E.H.; he was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay specified court costs.
At sentencing the court relied on the PSI (which recited Garey’s juvenile and adult convictions and jail misconduct) and denied defense requests for a more lenient sentence; the court also assessed fees for E.H.’s court‑appointed attorney and guardian ad litem.
On appeal Garey raised three assignments of error: (1) conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) sentence unsupported by the record/contrary to law, and (3) error in assessing E.H.’s counsel and GAL fees against him.

Issue	State's Argument	Garey's Argument	Held
1) Was the GSI conviction (T.L.) against the manifest weight of the evidence?	T.L.’s testimony and other evidence were credible and supported the conviction.	Testimony was inconsistent and not credible; conviction should be overturned.	No. Jury credibility determinations stand; conviction is supported by competent, credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight.
2) Was the 60‑month sentence unsupported by the record or contrary to law?	Sentence was within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and PSI (criminal history, jail behavior).	PSI contained unprofessional opinions; court misweighed recidivism factors and ignored mitigating evidence.	No. Court properly exercised sentencing discretion; record does not clearly and convincingly show the sentence is contrary to law.
3) May Garey be ordered to pay fees for E.H.’s court‑appointed counsel and GAL?	State conceded those fees should not be assessed because Garey was acquitted of E.H.’s charges; alternatively fees tied to convictions.	Such assessments are not authorized by law.	Yes in result. The court reversed the assessment of E.H.’s counsel and GAL fees because those costs arose from charges on which Garey was acquitted and thus cannot be assessed. Case remanded to reassess costs.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (articulates manifest‑weight review standard)
State v. Blanton, 121 Ohio App.3d 162 (3d Dist. 1997) (discusses burden of persuasion in manifest‑weight analysis)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standards for appellate review of felony sentences)
State v. Powers, 117 Ohio App.3d 124 (1996) (costs of prosecution, including jury fees, may be assessed only if state succeeds)
State v. Posey, 135 Ohio App.3d 751 (1999) (assessing costs against a defendant in absence of conviction raises due‑process concerns)
State v. Obermiller, 147 Ohio St.3d 175 (2016) (presumption that judges will disregard extraneous influences and know the law)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)