[Cite as State v. Doseck, 2024-Ohio-2862.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

LOGAN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

CASE NO. 8-23-29

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

 v.

BRAD E. DOSECK, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court

Trial Court No. CR 23 03 0054

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: July 29, 2024

APPEARANCES:

William T. Cramer for Appellant

Nathan Yohey for Appellee
Case No. 8-23-29

-2-

WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Brad Doseck (“Doseck”) brings this appeal from 

the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Logan County sentencing him to 

consecutive sentences. On appeal, Doseck challenges the imposition of consecutive 

sentences. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.

{¶2} On March 8, 2023, the Logan County Grand Jury indicted Doseck on 

the following counts: 1) Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. 

2925.03(A)(1),(C)(1)(d), a felony of the second degree; 2) Trafficking in Cocaine 

in violation of R.C. 292503(A)(1),(C)(4)(a), a felony of the fifth degree; 3) 

Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1),(C)(1)(d), a 

felony of the second degree; 4) Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs in violation of R.C. 

2925.03(A)(1),(C)(1)(c), a felony of the third degree; and 5) Aggravated Trafficking 

in Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1),(C)(1)(d), a felony of the second degree. 

Doseck initially entered pleas of not guilty to all counts. On September 18, 2023, 

Doseck and the State entered into a plea agreement in which Doseck agreed to plead 

guilty to counts one and three and the State agreed to dismiss counts two, four, and 

five. The trial court accepted the guilty pleas and ordered that a pre-sentence 

investigation be completed. 

{¶3} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on October 18, 2023. The trial 

court indicated that it had considered the record, oral statements, and the pre-
Case No. 8-23-29

-3-

sentence report as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 

2929.11 and the statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. The trial court then 

ordered Doseck to serve an indefinite prison term of eight to twelve years as to count 

one and eight years for count three. The trial court then ordered that the sentences 

be served consecutively. The trial court made the required findings to support the 

imposition of consecutive sentences. Doseck appeals from this judgment and on 

appeal raises the following assignment of error.

The consecutive sentence findings are not support[ed] by the 

record because [Doseck] was not such a danger that consecutive 

findings were necessary to protect the community and consecutive 

sentences were disproportionate to the danger posed by [Doseck].

{¶4} In the sole assignment of error, Doseck alleges that the consecutive 

sentence findings are not supported by the record.

If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of 

multiple offenses, the 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 
Case No. 8-23-29

-4-

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.

R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Appellate courts must give deference to a trial court’s 

consecutive sentence findings. State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851 ¶ 15. “R.C. 

2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise 

modify consecutive sentences only if the record does not “clearly and convincingly” 

support the trial court's R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings.” Id. at 

¶ 13.

{¶5} Doseck does not allege that the trial court failed to make the required 

findings, instead claiming that the findings are not supported by the record. A 

review of the record shows that the offense charged under count one involved a sale 

of drugs on May 25, 2022. The offense charged under count three involved a sale 

of drugs on June 14, 2022. This evidence shows that the offenses were multiple 

courses of conduct. The record also shows that Doseck has a long history of 

criminal behavior with his commission of felonies starting in 2003. This includes 

two prior convictions for trafficking in drugs, which resulted in prior prison terms. 

Additionally, Doseck has a history of violating the terms of his community control 

sanctions, which resulted in community control being terminated and Doseck being 

sent to prison. Doseck’s criminal history supports the trial court’s conclusion that 
Case No. 8-23-29

-5-

consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public. As the evidence 

supports the findings of the trial court, the assignment of error is overruled.

{¶6} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars 

assigned and argued, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Logan County is 

affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed

WALDICK and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/hls