State v. Carter

2025 Ohio 1217

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 7, 2025
• Docket: 5-24-35
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Carter, 2025-Ohio-1217.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 5-24-35 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

RAYMOND F. CARTER, OPINION

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 2023 CR 107

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: April 7, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Lawrence A. Gold for Appellant

Phillip A. Riegle for Appellee Case No. 5-24-35

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Raymond F. Carter (“Carter”) appeals the

judgment of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the trial

court erred in the process of imposing sentence. For the reasons set forth below, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On January 11, 2023, the Perrysburg Police Department received a

report from the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force that a video of a child

being sexually assaulted was being distributed on Snapchat. Law enforcement

traced the internet protocol address to Carter’s residence in Wood County, Ohio.

The police then obtained a search warrant for Carter’s house and located a collection

of roughly 1,400 digital files that were related to the police investigation into the

possession of child pornography. This collection included over 400 videos of

children being sexually abused that were saved in computer folders entitled “d*ck

down kids” and “kids wanna be f**ked”; 600 video recordings of small children in

public places; and multiple videos of Carter sexually assaulting children. (PSI).

{¶3} One of the seized videos captured Carter raping a one-year-old child.

When questioned about this video, Carter admitted that he had this rape filmed while

he was babysitting the one-year-old child in Findlay, Ohio. He then admitted to

raping this same child again four years later in Hancock County. Carter had this

-2- Case No. 5-24-35

second rape filmed and saved this video file under the name “Eating [Child

Victim]’s Ass.” (Tr. 15). Carter was also in possession of hundreds of pornographic

images of this child victim. He also affirmed that he had “multiple child victims.”

(PSI). The police investigation into these activities led to criminal charges being

filed against Carter in Hancock County, Ohio; Wood County, Ohio; Franklin

County, Ohio; and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (“Horry County”).

{¶4} In the Hancock County case, Carter pled guilty to two counts of rape in

violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), first-degree felonies; two counts of pandering

sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5),

fourth-degree felonies; one count of attempted illegal use of a minor in nudity-

oriented materials or performance in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(1) and R.C.

2923.02(A), a third-degree felony; and one count of illegal use of a minor in nudity-

oriented material or performance in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(1), a second-

degree felony. Pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(B), the indictment specified that the victim

of the counts of rape was less than ten years old.

{¶5} In advance of sentencing, the State submitted various materials that had

been gathered during the police investigation into Carter’s possession of child

pornography. In response, Carter filed a motion objecting to the use of the following

at sentencing: (1) over three hundred pornographic images that depicted the child

victim in various states of undress; (2) videos in which Carter raped the child victim

in Franklin County two weeks prior to the first rape at issue in this case; and (3) a

-3- Case No. 5-24-35

video in which the child victim was “molested” as “an infant” in Myrtle Beach.1

(Tr. 14). Carter argued that these materials should not be considered at sentencing

as they led to charges in Franklin, Wood, and Horry counties and were unrelated to

the charges in Hancock County.

{¶6} At sentencing on July 23, 2024, the trial court determined that it would

consider the challenged materials “to the extent they’re relevant.” (Tr. 13). On July

26, 2024, the trial court issued its judgment entry of sentencing. The trial court

imposed a prison term of life without parole for each of the counts of rape. The

prison terms ordered for the remaining charges were imposed concurrently to the

life sentences.

Assignment of Error

{¶7} Carter filed his notice of appeal on August 22, 2024. On appeal, he

raises the following assignment of error:

The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant by improperly considering information outside of the record of the case at appellant’s sentencing hearing.

Standard of Review

{¶8} “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) establishes the scope of appellate review for

felony sentences.” State v. Morgan, 2024-Ohio-625, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). “Under this

provision, an appellate court has the authority to increase, reduce, modify, or vacate

1 Carter’s motion conceded that the two videos of Carter raping the child victim in Hancock County and the videos related to Count Five in the indictment in this case were relevant at sentencing.

-4- Case No. 5-24-35

a sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is contrary to law.”

State v. Manns, 2024-Ohio-4632, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.).

Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases.

Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477 (1954). Further, the Ohio Supreme Court

has held that “contrary to law” means “in violation of statute or legal regulations at

a given time.” State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 22, quoting Black’s Law

Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990).

Legal Standard

{¶9} “[T]he function of the sentencing court is to acquire a thorough grasp

of the character and history of the defendant before it.” State v. Wilson, 2024-Ohio-

5557, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Burton, 52 Ohio St.2d 21, 23 (1977). Thus,

“[h]ighly relevant—if not essential—to [the trial court’s] selection of an appropriate

sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the

defendant’s life and characteristics.” Wilson at ¶ 9, quoting Williams v. New York,

337 U.S. 241, 247 (1949).

{¶10} To further the objectives of sentencing, R.C. 2919.19(A) provides, in

its relevant part, the following:

At the [sentencing] hearing, the offender, the prosecuting attorney, the victim or the victim’s representative . . . and, with the approval of the

-5- Case No. 5-24-35

court, any other person may present information relevant to the imposition of sentence in the case.

Such information need “not [be] confined to the evidence that strictly relates to the

conviction offense because the court is no longer concerned, like it was during trial,

with the narrow issue of guilt.” State v. Njideka, 2020-Ohio-6644, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.),

quoting State v. Bowser, 2010-Ohio-951, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). Rather, “a sentencing

court may consider information outside the offense charged and those facts as it is

necessary to ‘determine the type and extent of punishment after the issue of guilt

has been determined.’” Wilson at ¶ 9, quoting Williams at 247.

{¶11} In this process, the trial court may consider information that would not

otherwise be admissible at trial. State v. Miranda, 2012-Ohio-3971, ¶ 17 (10th

Dist.). See State v. Brown, 2022-Ohio-4689, ¶ 18 (3d Dist.) (In general, “the Ohio

Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply to sentencing proceedings.”). At sentencing,

“[f]ew things can be so relevant as other criminal activity of the defendant.” State

v. Grashel, 2025-Ohio-580, ¶ 27 (4th Dist.), quoting Burton at 23. Thus, trial courts

are permitted to “consider a defendant’s pending criminal charges” as “this

information is required to be provided in a [presentence investigation report.]”

(Brackets sic.) State v. Brown, 2015-Ohio-365, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.), quoting State v.

Hoolihan, 2012-Ohio-5837, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.).

{¶12} Nonetheless, “[a] sentencing court may only consider information that

is properly before it at the sentencing hearing and cannot consider information from

-6- Case No. 5-24-35

outside of the record.” State v. Fowler, 2022-Ohio-3499, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.), citing

State v. Bayliff, 2010-Ohio-3944, ¶ 27 (3d Dist.). “Where the trial court relies on

information outside the record, a defendant’s due process rights may be violated.”

State v. McManus, 2015-Ohio-2393, ¶ 31 (8th Dist.). For these reasons, a sentence

may be contrary to law if it was based upon an unauthorized source of information

from outside of the record. State v. Taylor, 2024-Ohio-2107, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.).

Legal Analysis

{¶13} Carter raises four main arguments herein. First, he asserts that his

sentence was rendered contrary to law when the trial court considered materials

from outside of the record at sentencing. To substantiate this claim, he points to the

fact that the trial court had some of the videos and images obtained during the police

investigation into his possession of child pornography that ultimately extended into

his activities in four counties. However, all of these materials were a part of the

record. Thus, the trial court did not, as Carter asserts, consider information from

outside of the record. Accordingly, this first argument is without merit.

{¶14} Second, Carter argues that the identified materials did not directly

establish the specific charges in Hancock County and were, therefore, “irrelevant”

to his sentencing. (Appellant’s Brief, 9). However, “it is well-established in Ohio

law that the court may consider information beyond that strictly related to the

conviction offense.” State v. Bowser, 2010-Ohio-951, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.). See also

-7- Case No. 5-24-35

State v. Elkins, 2023-Ohio-1358, ¶ 19 (5th Dist.); State v. Ali, 2019-Ohio-3864, ¶

12 (10th Dist.); State v. Corey, 2022-Ohio-4568, ¶ 79 (11th Dist.).

{¶15} Additionally, a cursory review of these videos and digital images

makes their relevance at sentencing readily apparent. In this case, a police

investigation into Carter’s possession of child pornography began where he lived in

Wood County and uncovered related activities in Hancock, Franklin, and Horry

counties, leading to the charges in this case. The videos and images at issue also

involve the same child victim and were found in the same investigation.

{¶16} Given these facts, the challenged materials were, among other things,

clearly relevant to providing the immediate context surrounding the charges in this

case. See State v. Mayle, 2023-Ohio-684, ¶ 14 (5th Dist.) (holding that “the trial

court not only is permitted, but is ‘mandated, to consider the circumstances of the

offense.’”), quoting State v. Cassidy, 21 Ohio App.3d 100, 101 (9th Dist. 1984).

Thus, at sentencing, the trial court explained that these materials were “relevant to

a bigger picture about what is going on” in this case. (Tr. 12). Accordingly, this

second argument is without merit.

{¶17} Third, Carter argues that these materials were not properly before the

trial court as some of these materials involved uncharged conduct. As an initial

matter, we note that the presentence investigation report indicates that the pending

charges in Wood, Franklin, and Horry counties arose from the challenged video

-8- Case No. 5-24-35

recordings that captured Carter raping and molesting the child victim.2 Trial courts

“can consider a defendant’s pending criminal charges” as “this information is

required to be provided in a [PSI.]” Brown, 2015-Ohio-365, ¶ 18, quoting Hoolihan,

2012-Ohio-5837, ¶ 21. In this case, the trial judge noted at sentencing that he “can

consider other pending matters” but made clear that he was “not considering them

as evidence of having been convicted in these other jurisdictions.” (Tr. 12-13).

{¶18} In this argument, Carter primarily points to the pornographic images

of the child victim, arguing that not each of these images resulted in a charge.

However, these images are identified in the presentence investigation report. Trial

courts can “consider information [contained in a PSI] concerning a defendant’s

previous criminal history including uncharged yet undisputed conduct.” (Brackets

sic.) State v. Hale, 2014-Ohio-262, ¶ 31 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Steward, 2003-

Ohio-4082, ¶ 26 (4th Dist.). See also State v. Ballard, 2023-Ohio-3391, ¶6 (2d

Dist.); State v. Cooper, 2010-Ohio-1983, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.); State v. Cardwell, 2016-

Ohio-5591, ¶ 15 (10th Dist.); State v. Russell, 2020-Ohio-3243, ¶ 116 (11th Dist.).

{¶19} In the case before us, the challenged materials were found in Carter’s

possession and recorded his own criminal conduct. On appeal, Carter does not

dispute the authenticity or reliability of the challenged materials. Further, “a

reviewing court presumes that a judge will consider only relevant, material, and

2 The presentence investigation indicated that, at the time of sentencing in Hancock County, Carter had pled guilty to charges in Wood County but had not yet been sentenced; that a trial had been scheduled for the pending charges in Franklin County; and that an active warrant had been issued for Carter in Horry County.

-9- Case No. 5-24-35

competent evidence.” State v. Kline, 2012-Ohio-4345, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.). In this case,

the trial court was cautious in its handling of this information, making clear that it

was considering these materials “only to the extent that they may . . . be relevant to

the issues of sentencing.” (Tr. 91). At sentencing, the trial court conducted an

extensive review of the facts of this case under the relevant statutory factors. Having

examined the record, we find no reason to dispense with the aforementioned

presumption. Accordingly, this third argument is without merit.

{¶20} Finally, Carter argues that these challenged materials were improperly

submitted to “shock” the trial court, resulting in the imposition of a prison term of

life without parole instead of a prison term of life with parole. (Appellant’s Brief,

9). However, even if the challenged materials had been excluded, the record would

still contain two graphic videos in which Carter had himself filmed raping the child

victim at the tender ages of one and five. Given the unconscionable nature of the

acts captured in these two videos, no additional materials are required to put any

reasonable person’s conscience into a state of shock. Accordingly, this fourth

argument is without merit.

{¶21} In summary, none of Carter’s arguments establish that his sentence is

clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The trial court did not consider evidence

from outside the record. Additionally, the record contains no indication that that the

trial court handled any of the materials before it inappropriately in the process of

fashioning a sentence. Accordingly, the sole assignment of error is overruled.

-10- Case No. 5-24-35

Conclusion

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

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

affirmed.

WALDICK, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.

/hls

-11-