State v. JewellState v. Jewell
Peter Galyardt for Appellant
Reed D. Searcy for Appellee
{1} Defendant-appellant, Bradly J. Jewell (“Jewell“) appeals the March 16, 2020 judgment entry of sentencing of the Auglaize County Common Pleas Court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{2} On February 27, 2019, the Auglaize County Grand Jury indicted Jewell on thirteen criminal charges including ten counts of Rape, in violation of
{3} On January 21, 2020, Jewell withdrew his pleas of not guilty and entered guilty pleas to the Gross-Sexual-Imposition counts of the indictment and entered guilty pleas to three counts of Rape, per a bill of information, under a negotiated-plea agreement.1 (Doc. Nos. 61, 62, 63); (Jan. 21, 2020 Tr. at 3-7). The plea agreement also included a sentencing recommendation and the ten Rape counts in the original indictment, which carried potential life sentences were dismissed. (See Doc. No. 64). (Jan. 21, 2020 Tr. at 3-7, 40-42). The trial court accepted
Jewell‘s guilty pleas and ordered the preparation of a presentence-investigation report (“PSI“). (Doc. No. 64); (Jan. 21, 2020 Tr. at 40-42).
{4} On March 13, 2020, the trial court sentenced Jewell to 60-months in prison on each of the three Gross-Sexual-Imposition charges, two 11-year prison terms on the two Rape charges, and a 7-year prison term on the third Rape charge.2 (Doc. No. 74). (Mar. 13, 2020 Tr. at 25-26). The two 11-year prison terms (in Counts One and Two) were ordered to run concurrently to one another. (Id.); (Id. at 27). The 7-year prison term (in Count Three) was ordered to be served consecutively to the 11-year terms. (Id.); (Id. at 27). Further, the trial court ordered the 60-month prison terms in Counts Nine, Ten, and Eleven to run consecutively to one another and consecutive to the prison terms in Counts One, Two, and Three for a total stated prison term of 33 years, 18 of which is mandatory. (Id.); (Id. at 28).
{5} Jewell timely filed his notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 90). He raises one assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The trial court erred when it sentenced Bradly Jewell to a multiple-offenses consecutive sentence that is not clearly and convincingly supported by the record at each level of enhancement.
{6} In his assignment of error, Jewell argues that the record does not clearly and convincingly support the trial court‘s findings under
Standard of Review
{7} “Under
Analysis
{8} Initially, we note, Jewell does not challenge the trial court‘s compliance with
{9} Moreover, even though the trial court made the requisite consecutive-sentencing findings under
{10} Sentence packaging is “a federal doctrine that requires the court to consider the sanctions imposed on multiple offenses as the components of a single, comprehensive sentencing plan.” State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, ¶ 5. In Saxon, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected a sentence-packaging
approach, finding the federal doctrine to have “no applicability to Ohio sentencing laws.” Id. at ¶ 10. Under Ohio law, a sentencing court “must consider each offense individually and impose a separate sentence for each offense.” Id. at ¶ 9, citing
{11} Jewell‘s sentence-packaging argument is misplaced because the trial court considered each offense individually and imposed a separate sentence for each offense. (Doc. No. 74); (Mar. 13, 2020 Tr. at 25-27). See
{12} Next, we address Jewell‘s assertion that the record does not support the trial court‘s findings. Specifically, Jewell argues that his consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly supported by the record, and thus, contrary to law because the trial court imposed consecutive sentences (totaling 33 years) that exceeded the State‘s joint-sentencing recommendation (of 26 years). The crux of his argument centers around the trial court‘s decision to run the 7-year Rape-prison term (in Count Three) consecutive to the 11-year Rape-prison terms (in Counts One
{13}
(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 , or2929.18 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.
{14}
{15} Additionally, 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, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-13-01, 2014-Ohio-4140, ¶ 50, citing State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 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.
{16} In the case before us, the trial court adhered strictly to the language of
[Trial Court] The Court orders that,- first of all, the Court make findings that CONSECUTIVE service is necessary to protect the public from future crime and 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 the court also finds that at least two (2) of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct and the harm caused by two (2) 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 reflect the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct; and the Court also finds that the offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{17} Here, the record establishes that Jewell sexually abused three minor children on numerous occasions over the course of several years exploiting their vulnerabilities based on age, lack of knowledge, and inability to engage in self-protection. (See Doc. Nos. 1, 61); (Mar. 13, 2020 Tr. at 24). We conclude that this alone supports the trial court‘s findings as to a course of conduct under
{18} Under the facts presented, the trial court‘s consecutive sentence findings are supported by the record. Therefore, we conclude that there is not clear and convincing evidence that Jewell‘s sentence is not supported by the record or that his sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Nienberg, 2017-Ohio-2920, at ¶ 23.
{19} For these reasons, Jewell‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{20} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur.
/jlr