[Cite as State v. Craig, 2019-Ohio-1092.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

BELMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

BRADLEY ALAN CRAIG, 

Defendant-Appellant.

 

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY 

Case No. 18 BE 0001 

 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio 

Case No. 17 CR 309 

BEFORE: 

Cheryl L. Waite, Gene Donofrio, David A. D’Apolito, Judges. 

JUDGMENT: 

Affirmed. 

Atty. Dan Fry, Belmont County Prosecuting Attorney and Atty. Joseph A. Vavra, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 147-A West Main Street, St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950, 

for Plaintiff-Appellee 

Atty. Meagan Todaro Kirchner, Shaheen Law Group, P.O. Box 579, Saint Clairsville, 

Ohio 43950, for Defendant-Appellant. 

 

Dated: March 21, 2019 

 

WAITE, P.J. 
 – 2 – 

Case No. 18 BE 0001

{¶1} Appellant Bradley Alan Craig appeals a December 19, 2017 Belmont 

County Common Pleas Court judgment entry convicting him of pandering obscenity 

involving a minor. Appellant argues that the trial court’s imposition of a maximum 

sentence is contrary to law. For the reasons provided, Appellant’s argument is without 

merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Factual and Procedural History 

{¶2} On November 11, 2017, the state filed a bill of information charging 

Appellant with a sole count of pandering obscenity involving a minor, a felony of the fourth 

degree in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(5). Appellant waived indictment and pleaded 

guilty to the sole offense as charged. The state agreed to remain silent at sentencing. 

{¶3} On December 18, 2017, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Defense 

counsel recommended a community control sanction at the Eastern Ohio Correctional 

Center (“EOCC”) in lieu of a prison sentence. Pursuant to the Crim.R. 11 plea agreement, 

the state remained silent. The trial court noted that Appellant had been charged, although 

not convicted of all, twenty-seven offenses that were included within the pre-sentence 

investigation report (“PSI”) as an adult. The trial court also noted the severity of the instant 

offense and the harm done to the victims, who were children. Although the trial court did 

not find the existence of any of the nine R.C. 2929.13(B)(2) factors, the court sentenced 

Appellant to the maximum sentence, eighteen months of incarceration, with credit for fiftytwo days served. Although Appellant states that he received five years of postrelease 

control, the record clearly indicates that the trial court imposed a three-year postrelease 

control period. Additionally, Appellant was classified as a tier two offender for registration 

purposes. 
 – 3 – 

Case No. 18 BE 0001

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

The trial court erred in sentencing the defendant-appellant, Bradley Alan 

Craig, to a maximum term of eighteen (18) months in the penitentiary, with 

a five (5) year term of post release control, following his conviction for a 

single count of “Pandering Obscenity Involving a Minor,” a violation of R.C. 

§ 2907.321(A)(5), a felony of the fourth degree. 

{¶4} Appellant argues that the trial court improperly considered twenty-seven 

offenses that were included within his PSI report. Appellant urges that not all of these 

offenses resulted in a conviction. Appellant contends it is clear the sentence imposed by 

the trial court improperly relied on these charges as the court specifically found that none 

of the R.C. 2929.13(B)(2) factors existed. Additionally, Appellant argues that the trial 

court should have focused on his remorse and the potential benefit of being sentenced to 

the EOCC. 

{¶5} In response, the state argues that the trial court expressly stated it 

considered all of the relevant sentencing statutes. The state notes that the court also 

stated that it considered Appellant’s lengthy criminal record and the fact that the victim in 

this case is a minor. 

{¶6} An appellate court is permitted to review a felony sentence to determine if 

it is contrary to law. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 

1231, ¶ 23. Pursuant to Marcum, “an appellate court may vacate or modify any sentence 

that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law only if the appellate court finds by clear 

and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence.” Id. 

{¶7} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b): 
 – 4 – 

Case No. 18 BE 0001

The court has discretion to impose a prison term upon an offender who is 

convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the fourth or fifth degree that is 

not an offense of violence or that is a qualifying assault offense if any of the 

following apply: 

* * * 

(v) The offense is a sex offense that is a fourth or fifth degree felony 

violation of any provision of Chapter 2907. of the Revised Code. 

{¶8} Here, Appellant was convicted of a sex offense that is a fourth degree felony 

in violation of Chapter 2907 of the revised code. Thus, the trial court had discretion to 

impose a prison term. 

{¶9} Appellant next argues that the trial court improperly considered the twentyseven offenses contained in his PSI, as not all of those charges resulted in convictions. 

We have acknowledged that “[i]t is well established that sentencing courts may consider 

arrests and even prior allegations that did not result in conviction before imposing 

sentence.” State v. Martin, 7th Dist. No. 16 MA 0160, 2018-Ohio-862, ¶ 7, citing State v. 

Hutton, 53 Ohio St.3d 36, 43, 559 N.E.2d 432 (1990). As such, the trial court properly 

considered Appellant’s prior criminal history. 

{¶10} Accordingly, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is without merit and is 

overruled. 

Conclusion 

{¶11} Appellant argues that the trial court’s imposition of a maximum sentence is 

contrary to law. As the trial court properly considered the relevant sentencing statutes, 

Appellant’s argument is without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 
 – 5 – 

Case No. 18 BE 0001

Donofrio, J., concurs. 

D’Apolito, J., concurs. 
[Cite as State v. Craig, 2019-Ohio-1092.]

 

 

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignment of error 

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

Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs waived. 

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate 

in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that 

a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into 

execution. 

 

 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.