State v. Dodson

2025 Ohio 1733

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 15, 2025
• Docket: 114326
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Dodson, 2025-Ohio-1733.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114326 v. :

JEFFERY WAYNE DODSON, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 15, 2025

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-20-647810-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Melissa Riley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Allison S. Breneman, for appellant.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:

Defendant-appellant Jeffery Wayne Dodson appeals his convictions on

multiple sex-related offenses involving minors. For the reasons that follow, we

affirm. Procedural History and Facts

In 2020, Dodson was charged with two counts of pandering sexually

oriented matter involving a minor, felonies of the second degree, in violation of

R.C. 2907.322(A)(2); eight counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving

a minor, felonies of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5); and one

count of possessing criminal tools, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of

R.C. 2923.24(A). The matter proceeded to a jury trial, at which the following

pertinent evidence was presented.

This case arose from a 2018 investigation into peer-to-peer file sharing

of child sexual abuse material (“CSAM”). Internet Crimes Against Children

(“ICAC”) Taskforce Commander David Frattare connected with a peer-to-peer

network user who shared CSAM with him. Using the IP address associated with file

sharing, Frattare identified Dodson as the IP address subscriber. Frattare was

familiar with Dodson from a 2011 investigation that resulted in a conviction of

multiple counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor. See State

v. Dodson, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-11-555731-A.1

Frattare was able to obtain downloads of two files that Dodson shared

with him via the peer-to-peer network. The first file was sent from Dodson’s

1 In August 2013, Dodson pleaded guilty to 21 counts relating to his use of his home

computer to download child pornography. He was sentenced to four years in prison. See State v. Dodson, 2013-Ohio-1344 (8th Dist.) (affirming conviction but reversing the imposition of consecutive sentences because the trial court failed to make the requisite statutory findings), and State v. Dodson, 2014-Ohio-2272 (8th Dist.) (affirming the consecutive sentences imposed at resentencing). Dodson was on postrelease control when he was charged in the instant case. IP address and downloaded on November 26, 2018. This file contained a video

depicting multiple young male children who were naked and engaged in sexual

activity. The second file was downloaded on November 28, 2018, and showed a

young female child being raped by an adult male. Both files were uploaded from the

IP address registered to Dodson’s home address, phone number, and Time Warner

account number.

Frattare obtained a search warrant for Dodson’s house, which was

executed on December 7, 2018. Dodson, who lived alone, was home when the search

warrant was executed. Investigators located a laptop computer in the kitchen during

the search. The laptop was missing a hard drive, which investigators located in a

locked safe. Investigators interviewed Dodson, who stated that he had been unable

to open the safe for the past two or three years and inquired whether the officers had

a drill to help him access the safe. On top of the safe, however, was a hand drawn

mock-up of the safe as well as handwritten notes on how to access the safe. The safe

was locked but investigators were able to pick the lock and access the contents of the

safe, which included the Hitachi hard drive and paperwork relating to the sale of the

house to Dodson.

Retired forensic examiner Jeffrey Rice examined multiple electronic

devices seized from Dodson’s home. To examine the devices, Rice connected the

electronics to a “write-blocker,” which is designed to prevent data from being added

or altered during the analysis. Rice made an exact copy of each device and used

forensic software tools to examine the data. Rice discovered that the Hitachi hard drive contained approximately

80 thumbnail files of CSAM. According to Rice, thumbnail files are small pictures

that are created when a user opens or downloads images or video files. He found

that eight of the thumbnail tags depicted young girls engaged in oral sexual conduct.

Rice also located a peer-to-peer sharing program, which is sometimes used by

individuals to share child exploitation. Rice testified that he located significant

keyword searches on the peer-to-peer sharing program including numerous search

terms that denoted that Dodson was looking for young girls engaged in sexual

conduct, young girls who had been drugged and raped, and children engaged with

each other in sexual conduct.

The Hitachi hard drive also contained documents including an

application for food stamps with Dodson’s full name, phone number, home address,

date of birth, email address, and social security number on the application. The

document was dated November 30, 2018, just days before the execution of the

search warrant, and contained Dodson’s electronic signature. The drive also

contained a word document signed by Dodson regarding phone service issues he

encountered in late 2018, right before the search warrant was executed.

The jury convicted Dodson of all charges. The trial court sentenced him

to eight years in prison on Counts 1 and 2, 36 months in prison on each of Counts 3

through 10, and 12 months in prison on Count 11, to run consecutively, for a total of

41 years in prison. Dodson now appeals. Assignments of Error

I. The jury found, against the manifest weight of the evidence, that the appellant committed the acts alleged in the indictment.

II. The evidence was not legally sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.

III. The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences.

Law and Analysis

In the first and second assignments of error, Dodson claims that his

convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence and were unsupported

by sufficient evidence.

When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must

determine “‘whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Leonard, 2004-Ohio-6235, ¶ 77,

quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. The

court examines all the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such

evidence, if believed, would convince a reasonable factfinder of the defendant’s guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Williams, 2023-Ohio-2296, ¶ 81 (8th Dist.),

citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). Whether the evidence is legally

sufficient to support a verdict is a question of law. Thompkins at 386.

In contrast to a challenge based on sufficiency of the evidence, the

“[w]eight of the evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of credible

evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other . . . . Weight is not a question of mathematics but depends on its effect in inducing

belief.”’ Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 12, quoting Thompkins at 387.

In order to evaluate whether a judgment or verdict is against the manifest weight of

the evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence

and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses, and determine

whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way in resolving conflicts in the evidence and

created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed

and a new trial ordered. State v. Jordan, 2023-Ohio-3800, ¶ 17, citing Thompkins

and State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983). The Ohio Supreme Court

has held that “[a] manifest-weight challenge should be sustained ‘only in the

exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.’”

Thompkins at id., quoting Martin at 175; State v. Price, 2024-Ohio-5598, ¶ 50

(8th Dist.).

In both assignments of error, Dodson claims that there was no direct

evidence to connect him to the hard drive found in the safe and he was never

identified as the person who used the hard drive.

Proof of guilt may be supported “by circumstantial evidence, real

evidence, and direct evidence, or any combination of the three, and all three have

equal probative value.” State v. Wilborn, 2024-Ohio-5003, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.), citing

State v. Rodano, 2017-Ohio-1034 (8th Dist.). “Although circumstantial evidence

and direct evidence have obvious differences, those differences are irrelevant to the

probative value of the evidence, and circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence.” Wilborn at id., citing State v. Cassano, 2012-Ohio-4047, ¶ 13

In November 2018, ICAC Commander Frattare connected to Dodson’s

IP address and obtained two files containing CSAM. As a result, Frattare executed

a residential search warrant on Dodson’s residence where investigators located

approximately 80 files of CSAM on the Hitachi hard drive, found in Dodson’s safe.

Although Dodson, who lived alone, claimed he had not been able to access the safe

in the last two to three years, investigators located recently executed documents with

Dodson’s personal identifying information on the hard drive including an

application for food stamps and a letter written by Dodson concerning phone-

service issues he encountered in late 2018, just prior to the execution of the search

warrant. Thus, ample evidence exists tying Dodson to the Hitachi hard drive from

which the jury could infer he was the one who possessed and used the hard drive

containing CSAM.

The first and second assignments of error are overruled.

Consecutive Sentences

In the third assignment of error, Dodson challenges the consecutive

nature of his sentence.

Pursuant to R.C. 2929.41(A), there is a presumption that a defendant’s

multiple prison sentences will be served concurrently, unless certain circumstances

inapplicable in this case apply, see, e.g., R.C. 2929.14(C)(1) through (3), or the trial court makes findings supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences, including

at least one of the following under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c):

(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 [R.C. 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18], 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.

“When imposing consecutive sentences, a trial court must state the

required findings as part of the sentencing hearing” and “incorporate its statutory

findings into the sentencing entry.” State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 29.

Under R.C. 2953.08(G), an appellate court reviews the record and

may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under

R.C. 2953.08(G) or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the

sentencing court for resentencing. We do not review the sentence for an abuse of

discretion; rather we may take any action authorized by R.C. 2953.08(G) if we

clearly and convincingly find either that the record does not support the sentencing

court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) or that the sentence is otherwise contrary

to law. R.C. 2953.08(F) requires we review the entire trial-court record,

including any oral or written statements made to or by the trial court at the

sentencing hearing, and any presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report

that was submitted to the court in writing before the sentence was imposed. State v.

Jones, 2024-Ohio-1083, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing R.C. 2953.08(F)(1) - (4).

Dodson does not challenge that the trial court made the requisite

statutory findings to impose consecutive sentences, nor does he argue that his

sentence is contrary to law. Indeed, our review of the record shows that the trial

court made the statutory findings to impose consecutive sentences and the sentence

it imposed was not contrary to law. Dodson’s challenge to his sentence is that the

41-year sentence imposed by the court was unsupported by the record.

After a thorough review of the record, we cannot say that the trial

court’s sentence clearly and convincingly was unsupported by the record.

In sentencing Dodson, the trial court noted that he had committed the

worst form of the offense, that his offenses damaged people’s lives forever, and that

the danger he posed “is great and overwhelming.” The court noted that Dodson not

only downloaded CSAM but also disseminated it. The court emphasized that

Dodson had committed the same crimes before and went to prison and, importantly,

was on postrelease control for those crimes when he committed the crimes in the

instant case:

I think it’s terrible, terrible. And he wouldn’t accept responsibility. He went to prison for it previously and that didn’t do a thing. It didn’t do a thing. And the only time through the course of the trial that he pays attention is when [the State was] showing the pictures of children. The only time he leaned into the monitor to pay attention was when [the State] was showing pictures of the children.

...

I also find that this is one of the worst forms of the offense, and I also find that he previously went to prison, and he’s not learned a lesson, and I also find he has no remorse for his conduct.

Dodson argues that the trial court “failed to consider that a 41-year

prison sentence was vastly disproportionate to the conduct by Mr. Dodson,” that

Dodson could have “murdered a child and gotten less time in prison,” and that

“[m]ost other judges in Cuyahoga County would have sentenced” Dodson to “less

than 10 years in prison or even considered community control.” Dodson fails to

support his claims, however, and it is not the job of this court to make his arguments

for him. Briefly, the trial court did in fact consider the proportionality of Dodson’s

sentence when it stated twice during the sentencing hearing that it found that

“consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of [Dodson’s]

conduct.” Had Dodson wanted to challenge the proportionality of his sentence to

other offenders, it was incumbent upon him to support such a claim.

As this court recently stated:

[A] defendant has no constitutional right to concurrent sentences for two separate crimes involving separate acts. [Additionally,] if the sentence for a particular offense is not disproportionately long, it does not become so merely because it is consecutive to another sentence for a separate offense or because the consecutive sentences are lengthy in aggregate. State v. Ward, 2025-Ohio-835, ¶ 20 (8th Dist.) quoting State v. Hairston, 2008-

Ohio-2338, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Berger, 212 Ariz. 473, 479 (2006).

Dodson’s sentence on each of his crimes is not disproportionally long

and he has failed to demonstrate that the record does not support the imposition of

consecutive sentences. The third assignment of error is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s

conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case

remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

________________________ MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE

LISA B. FORBES, P.J., and EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR