[Cite as State v. Kelly, 2025-Ohio-5461.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 8-25-06 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLY, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 24 03 0059
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: December 8, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Brian A. Smith for Appellant
Eric C. Stewart for Appellee Case No. 8-25-06
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Christopher D. Kelly (“Kelly”) brings this appeal
from the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Logan County sentencing Kelly
to consecutive sentences. On appeal Kelly claims that the trial court erred by doing
so. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On March 12, 2024, the Logan County grand jury indicted Kelly on
seven counts of rape, two counts of sexual battery, and one count of attempted
sexual battery. The counts involved three different victims with victim one being
the subject of the rape counts, victim two being the subject of the sexual battery
counts; and victim three being the victim of the attempted sexual battery count.
Kelly initially entered pleas of not guilty to all of the counts. On February 18, 2025,
Kelly, pursuant to a plea agreement, entered pleas of guilty to one count of rape in
violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), (B), a felony of the first degree, and one count of
sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(5), (B), a felony of the third degree.
In exchange for the guilty pleas, the State agreed to dismiss six counts of rape, one
count of sexual battery, and one count of attempted sexual battery. The trial court
held a sentencing hearing on March 21, 2025. The trial court ordered Kelly to serve
an indefinite prison term of 11 to 16½ years for the rape conviction and a definite
prison term of five years for the sexual battery conviction. The trial court then
-2- Case No. 8-25-06
ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for an aggregate prison term of
16 years in prison to 21½ years in prison. The trial court then made the following
findings:
The Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and/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. The Court further FINDS that 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.
Sentencing Entry. Kelly appealed from this judgment and raised the following
assignment of error on appeal.
Because the record does not support the trial court’s findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences was, by clear and convincing evidence, not supported by the record.
{¶3} In the sole assignment of error, Kelly challenges the imposition of
consecutive sentences. Before a trial court can impose consecutive sentences, it
must make certain findings.
4) 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:
-3- Case No. 8-25-06
(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.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a-c). In making these findings, the trial court is not required to
use the exact words of the statute as long as the necessary findings can be found in
the record and are incorporated into the sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 2014-
Ohio-3177, ¶ 29. An appellate court may only modify consecutive sentences if the
record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings. State v.
Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 13. “[A]n appellate court is directed that it must have
a firm belief or conviction that the record does not support the trial court’s findings
before it may increase, reduce or otherwise modify consecutive sentences.” Id. at ¶
15.
{¶4} In his brief, Kelly does not claim that the trial court failed to make the
requisite findings, but rather that the findings do not support the conclusion that
-4- Case No. 8-25-06
consecutive sentences are appropriate. While Kelly extensively argues that
consecutive sentences were not necessary to protect the public from future crime by
Kelly, he fails to make an argument that consecutive sentences were not necessary
to punish him for his offenses. Indeed, a review of the record shows that the offenses
for which convictions were obtained occurred at two separate times with two
separate victims. The PSI revealed that Kelly began sexually assaulting and raping
victim one over a period of several years. Victim one indicated that when she
threatened to tell someone what Kelly was doing, he threatened to kill her mother
and younger sister and then kidnap her to another country to get married. Victim
two told the investigators that Kelly had engaged in sexual conduct with her over
an eight month period. Before they would engage in sexual intercourse, he would
give her marijuana. The evidence before the trial court showed that the offenses for
which Kelly was convicted and sentenced were sex offenses committed over several
years against two different victims, and that he used his relationship with the victims
to facilitate the offenses. The record also shows that the age of the victims,
combined with the nature of the offenses, caused much harm to the victims. Given
the record before this Court, we do not find that the record does not clearly and
convincingly support the findings of the trial court. Thus, the assignment of error
is overruled.
-5- Case No. 8-25-06
{¶5} 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.
WALDICK, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.
-6- Case No. 8-25-06
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is
overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Kelly, 2025-Ohio-5461.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 8-25-06 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLY, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CR 24 03 0059
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: December 8, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Brian A. Smith for Appellant
Eric C. Stewart for Appellee Case No. 8-25-06
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Christopher D. Kelly (“Kelly”) brings this appeal
from the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Logan County sentencing Kelly
to consecutive sentences. On appeal Kelly claims that the trial court erred by doing
so. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On March 12, 2024, the Logan County grand jury indicted Kelly on
seven counts of rape, two counts of sexual battery, and one count of attempted
sexual battery. The counts involved three different victims with victim one being
the subject of the rape counts, victim two being the subject of the sexual battery
counts; and victim three being the victim of the attempted sexual battery count.
Kelly initially entered pleas of not guilty to all of the counts. On February 18, 2025,
Kelly, pursuant to a plea agreement, entered pleas of guilty to one count of rape in
violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), (B), a felony of the first degree, and one count of
sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(5), (B), a felony of the third degree.
In exchange for the guilty pleas, the State agreed to dismiss six counts of rape, one
count of sexual battery, and one count of attempted sexual battery. The trial court
held a sentencing hearing on March 21, 2025. The trial court ordered Kelly to serve
an indefinite prison term of 11 to 16½ years for the rape conviction and a definite
prison term of five years for the sexual battery conviction. The trial court then
-2- Case No. 8-25-06
ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for an aggregate prison term of
16 years in prison to 21½ years in prison. The trial court then made the following
findings:
The Court finds that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime and/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. The Court further FINDS that 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.
Sentencing Entry. Kelly appealed from this judgment and raised the following
assignment of error on appeal.
Because the record does not support the trial court’s findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences was, by clear and convincing evidence, not supported by the record.
{¶3} In the sole assignment of error, Kelly challenges the imposition of
consecutive sentences. Before a trial court can impose consecutive sentences, it
must make certain findings.
4) 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:
-3- Case No. 8-25-06
(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.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a-c). In making these findings, the trial court is not required to
use the exact words of the statute as long as the necessary findings can be found in
the record and are incorporated into the sentencing entry. State v. Bonnell, 2014-
Ohio-3177, ¶ 29. An appellate court may only modify consecutive sentences if the
record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings. State v.
Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 13. “[A]n appellate court is directed that it must have
a firm belief or conviction that the record does not support the trial court’s findings
before it may increase, reduce or otherwise modify consecutive sentences.” Id. at ¶
15.
{¶4} In his brief, Kelly does not claim that the trial court failed to make the
requisite findings, but rather that the findings do not support the conclusion that
-4- Case No. 8-25-06
consecutive sentences are appropriate. While Kelly extensively argues that
consecutive sentences were not necessary to protect the public from future crime by
Kelly, he fails to make an argument that consecutive sentences were not necessary
to punish him for his offenses. Indeed, a review of the record shows that the offenses
for which convictions were obtained occurred at two separate times with two
separate victims. The PSI revealed that Kelly began sexually assaulting and raping
victim one over a period of several years. Victim one indicated that when she
threatened to tell someone what Kelly was doing, he threatened to kill her mother
and younger sister and then kidnap her to another country to get married. Victim
two told the investigators that Kelly had engaged in sexual conduct with her over
an eight month period. Before they would engage in sexual intercourse, he would
give her marijuana. The evidence before the trial court showed that the offenses for
which Kelly was convicted and sentenced were sex offenses committed over several
years against two different victims, and that he used his relationship with the victims
to facilitate the offenses. The record also shows that the age of the victims,
combined with the nature of the offenses, caused much harm to the victims. Given
the record before this Court, we do not find that the record does not clearly and
convincingly support the findings of the trial court. Thus, the assignment of error
is overruled.
-5- Case No. 8-25-06
{¶5} 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.
WALDICK, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.
-6- Case No. 8-25-06
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is
overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby
rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the
judgment for costs.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s
judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.
27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the
proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.
John R. Willamowski, Judge
Juergen A. Waldick, Judge
Mark C. Miller, Judge
DATED: /hls
-7-