[Cite as State v. Jewell, 2021-Ohio-32.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

AUGLAIZE COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 2-20-11 

 v. 

BRADLY J. JEWELL, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. 2019 CR 0058 

Judgment Affirmed 

Date of Decision: January 11, 2021 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Peter Galyardt for Appellant 

 Reed D. Searcy for Appellee 
Case No. 2-20-11 

-2- 

ZIMMERMAN, J. 

{¶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 R.C. 

2907.02(A)(1)(b), all first-degree felonies and three counts of Gross Sexual 

Imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), all third-degree felonies. (Doc. No. 

1). Jewell pled not guilty to the charges. (Doc. No. 11). 

{¶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 

 

1

 The State filed a bill of information with three counts of Rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), all firstdegree felonies, pursuant to plea negotiations. (Doc. No. 61); (Jan. 21, 2020 Tr. at 3-7). Counts Nine, Ten, 

and Eleven of the indictment and Counts One, Two, and Three of the bill of information involved three 

different minor-child victims (two males ages 7 and 10 as well as a 3-year old female) all from different time 

frames. (Jan. 21, 20 Tr. at 35-39); (PSI). 
Case No. 2-20-11 

-3- 

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. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 

176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, paragraphs one, two, and 

three of the syllabus; State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279. 2019-

 

2

 Jewell’s prison terms as to his Rape charges are mandatory. (Doc. No. 74). (Mar. 13, 2020 Tr. at 25-26). 

Jewell was given 388 days’ jail-time credit, determined to be a Tier III sex offender, ordered to register 

pursuant to that determination for life, and notified of his registration requirements. (Doc. No. 74). (See

Mar. 13, 2020 Tr. at 13-14). 
Case No. 2-20-11 

-4- 

Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169, ¶ 17. March 13, 2020 Sentence Tr. 

26-28; March 16, 2020 Journal Entry. 

{¶6} In his assignment of error, Jewell argues that the record does not clearly 

and convincingly support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), and 

therefore, his sentence is contrary to law. 

Standard of Review 

{¶7} “Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court will 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. Nienberg, 3d Dist. Putnam Nos. 12-16-15 and 

12-16-16, 2017-Ohio-2920, ¶ 8, quoting State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 

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., quoting Marcum at ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio 

St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. 

Analysis 

{¶8} Initially, we note, Jewell does not challenge the trial court’s compliance 

with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Indeed, we conclude that the trial court 

appropriately indicated its consideration of these statutory sections prior to 

imposing sentence, and reiterated such findings in its sentencing entry. (Doc. No. 

74); (Mar. 13, 2020 Tr. at 25). Further, the record is clear that the trial court’s 
Case No. 2-20-11 

-5- 

sentences fall within the statutory range for the applicable felony degrees at issue 

under the facts before us. See R.C. 2929.14(A)(1) (2018) (current version at R.C. 

2929.14(A)(1)(a)-(b) (2019)) (“For a felony of the first degree, the prison term shall 

be three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, or eleven years.”); 2929.14(A)(3)(a) 

(2018) (current version at R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a) (2019)) (“For a felony of the third 

degree that is a violation of section * * * 2907.04 * * * the prison term shall be 

twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, thirty, thirty-six, forty-two, forty-eight, fifty-four, or 

sixty months.”). 

{¶9} Moreover, even though the trial court made the requisite consecutivesentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), Jewell argues that his sentence 

constitutes a prohibited sentencing package, and that the trial court was required to 

engage in a multi-leveled review of multiple consecutive sentences as set forth in 

State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245 and State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio 

St.3d 279, 2019-Ohio-4761.3

 

{¶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-Ohio1245, ¶ 5. In Saxon, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected a sentence-packaging 

 

3

 We decline to address Jewell’s argument to the extent he relies upon State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279, 

2019-Ohio-4761, a plurality opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Gwynne, although persuasive authority, 

is not binding on this court or anyone beyond the parties of that case since it failed to receive the support of 

the majority of the court. See State v. Cassell, 4th Dist. Highland No. 16CA15, 2017-Ohio-769, ¶ 17. 
Case No. 2-20-11 

-6- 

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 R.C. 

2929.11 through 2929.19. A sentencing court thus “lacks the authority to consider 

the offenses as a group and to impose only an omnibus sentence for the group of 

offenses.” Id. Simply put, sentencing courts in Ohio may not impose a single

“lump” sentence for multiple offenses. Id. at ¶ 8. 

{¶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 R.C. 2929.11 through 

2929.19. Thus, the record does not support that the trial court imposed “only an 

omnibus sentence” for Jewell’s convictions in violation of the sentence-packaging 

doctrine. See Saxon at ¶ 9. 

{¶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 
Case No. 2-20-11 

-7- 

and Two), rather than, running all of the Rape sentences concurrently to one another 

in conformity with the joint-sentencing recommendation. (See Doc. Nos. 61, 62, 

63, 74); (Jan. 21, 2020 Tr. at 15, 21, 24-25); (Mar. 13, 2020 Tr. at 25-26). 

{¶13} R.C. 2929.41(A) provides, in pertinent part: “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 * * *.” R.C. 2929.14(C) 

states: 

(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. 
Case No. 2-20-11 

-8- 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) (2018) (current version at R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) 

(2019)). 

{¶14} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) requires a trial court to make specific findings on 

the record when imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Hites, 3d Dist. Hardin 

No. 6-11-07, 2012-Ohio-1892, ¶ 11; State v. Peddicord, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-12-

24, 2013-Ohio-3398, ¶ 33, citing Hites at ¶ 11. 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.; Id.

{¶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-Ohio3177, ¶ 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 

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when ordering its consecutive sentences as to the Rape-prison 
Case No. 2-20-11 

-9- 

terms. The following exchange that occurred in open court at Jewell’s sentencing 

hearing demonstrates the trial court’s compliance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4): 

[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. 
Case No. 2-20-11 

-10- 

(Mar. 13, 2020 Tr. at 27). 

{¶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 selfprotection. (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 R.C. 

2929.14(C)(4)(b). See State v. Smith, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28265, 2019-Ohio5015, ¶ 72 (“defendant’s repeated sexual abuse of the same minor victim amounted 

to a ‘course of conduct’ justifying consecutive sentences.”). 

{¶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