State v. Treece

2025 Ohio 4319

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 15, 2025
• Docket: 5-23-42, 5-23-43
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Treece, 2025-Ohio-4319.]

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

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 5-23-42 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

BRANDON TREECE, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 5-23-43 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

BRANDON TREECE, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeals from Hancock County Common Pleas Court Trial Court Nos. 2022-CR-00520 and 2023-CR-00058

Judgments Affirmed

Date of Decision: September 15, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Lawrence A. Gold for Appellant

Sean M. Abbott for Appellee Case Nos. 5-23-42, 5-23-43

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Brandon G. Treece (“Treece”) appeals the

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

court erred in granting the State’s motion to join the two criminal cases against him

for trial. For the reasons set forth below, the judgments of the trial court are

affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} A.K. was in a relationship with Treece and moved in with him in

September of 2022. On November 18, 2022, A.K. came home from work at roughly

10:40 P.M. She testified that, when she arrived Treece got out of bed and began

punching her repeatedly. A.K. testified that Treece then wrapped an extension cord

around her neck and choked her until she lost consciousness.

{¶3} When she woke up on the floor, A.K. left the trailer and knocked on the

door of a nearby house where Steve Kinn (“Kinn”) lived. After speaking with A.K.,

Kinn called 9-1-1. Officer Ryan Hackworth (“Officer Hackworth”) was dispatched

to Kinn’s house and made contact with A.K. The police then went to Treece’s

residence and arrested him.

{¶4} On November 29, 2022, Treece was indicted on one count of felonious

assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a second-degree felony, and one count

-2- Case Nos. 5-23-42, 5-23-43

of attempted murder in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and R.C. 2903.02(A), a first-

degree felony. These charges became the basis of Case No. 2022-CR-520.

{¶5} After she was released from the hospital, A.K. returned to Treece’s

residence to gather her belongings. As she was going through items, she examined

the contents of a tablet that she located. In this process, she discovered a video of

Treece performing sexual acts on her while she was asleep. The time stamp on the

recording indicated that this video was taken on September 14, 2022. A.K. then

turned the tablet over to the police. On January 4, 2023, Officer Hackworth

conducted an interview with Treece about the video that was discovered by A.K.

{¶6} On February 8, 2023, Treece was charged with one count of sexual

battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(3), a third-degree felony. This charge

became the basis of Case No. 2023-CR-58.

{¶7} On April 7, 2023, the State filed a motion that requested Case No. 2022-

CR-520 and Case No. 2023-CR-58 be joined together for trial. Further, the State

indicated that, if the motion for joinder was denied, it would seek to use evidence

from each of these cases in the trial of the other case pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B).

After a hearing on May 25, 2023, the trial court granted the State’s motion for

joinder over Treece’s objection.

{¶8} A trial on the charges in these two cases commenced on June 20, 2023.

The jury found Treece guilty on the counts of felonious assault and sexual battery.

However, Treece was acquitted of the charge of attempted murder. On September

-3- Case Nos. 5-23-42, 5-23-43

13, 2023, the trial court issued a judgment entry of sentencing for each of these two

cases.

Assignment of Error

{¶9} Treece filed his notices of appeal on September 21, 2023. On appeal,

he raises the following assignment of error:

The trial court abused its discretion and erred to the prejudice of Appellant by joining 2022 CR 00520 and 2023 CR 00058.

Legal Standard

{¶10} Under Crim.R. 13, trial courts “may order two or more indictments . .

. to be tried together, if the offenses . . . could have been joined in a single

indictment.” Crim.R. 13. In turn, “Crim.R. 8(A) provides the standards for

determining whether separate offenses can be charged in the same indictment . . . .”

State v. Gordon, 2018-Ohio-259, ¶ 18. Crim.R. 8(A) reads, in its relevant part, as

follows:

Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment . . . if the offenses charged . . . are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, or are part of a course of criminal conduct.

Crim.R. 8(A). As a general matter, “[t]he law favors joining multiple criminal

offenses in a single trial.” State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118, 122 (1991). “This

is because joint trials ‘conserve state funds, diminish inconvenience to witnesses

-4- Case Nos. 5-23-42, 5-23-43

and public authorities, and avoid delays in bringing those accused of crime to trial.’”

Gordon at ¶ 18, quoting Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 134 (1968).

{¶11} However, “if it appears that a criminal defendant would be prejudiced

by such joinder, then the trial court is required to order separate trials.” State v.

Valentine, 2019-Ohio-2243, ¶ 43 (5th Dist.). See Crim.R. 14. “A defendant

claiming error based upon the trial court’s refusal to allow separate trials has the

burden of affirmatively showing that his rights were prejudiced.” State v. McBride,

2011-Ohio-1490, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.).

{¶12} A defendant’s claim of prejudice is negated when the evidence for the

offenses subject to joinder is “simple and direct, so that a jury is capable of

segregating the proof required for each offense.” State v. Shook, 2014-Ohio-3987,

¶ 21 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Fletcher, 2004-Ohio-4517, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.).

Evidence is ‘simple and direct’ if (1) the jury is capable of readily separating the proof required for each offense, (2) the evidence is unlikely to confuse jurors, (3) the evidence is straightforward, and (4) there is little danger that the jury would ‘improperly consider testimony on one offense as corroborative of the other.’

State v. Gideon, 2021-Ohio-1863, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.), quoting Valentine, 2019-Ohio-

2243, at ¶ 47, quoting State v. Wright, 2017-Ohio-8702, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.).

{¶13} The simple and direct test is applied “to prevent the finder of fact from

confusing the offenses.” State v. Varney, 2008-Ohio-5283, ¶ 19 (4th Dist.). “Ohio

appellate courts routinely find no prejudicial joinder where the evidence is presented

in an orderly fashion as to the separate offenses or victims without significant

-5- Case Nos. 5-23-42, 5-23-43

overlap or conflation of proof.” State v. Bradshaw, 2023-Ohio-1244, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.),

quoting State v. Lewis, 2010-Ohio-4202, ¶ 33 (6th Dist.).

Standard of Review

{¶14} A trial court’s decision to join cases together for trial is usually

reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Glaeser, 2025-Ohio-2386,

¶ 28 (3d Dist.). “However, ‘to properly preserve the issue of a trial court’s joinder

of indictments for appeal, the defendant must object to the joinder of indictments at

the time of trial, and at the close of the state’s case or at the close of evidence.’”

(Emphasis added.) State v. McLoyd, 2023-Ohio-3971, ¶ 33 (8th Dist.), quoting State

v. Frazier, 2019-Ohio-1433, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.), reversed on other grounds. See also

State v. Richard, 2021-Ohio-2980, ¶ 54 (3d Dist.).

{¶15} The failure to renew the objection to joinder in the proper manner

forfeits all but plain error on appeal. State v. Wolfe, 2025-Ohio-866, ¶ 41 (2d Dist.);

State v. Cunningham, 2024-Ohio-2032, ¶ 40 (10th Dist.).

For plain error to apply, the trial court must have deviated from a legal rule, the error must have been an obvious defect in the proceeding, and the error must have affected a substantial right. . . . Under the plain error standard, the appellant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the trial court’s error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise.

Bradshaw, 2023-Ohio-1244, at ¶ 67. Plain error is recognized “with the utmost

caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage

of justice.” State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.

-6- Case Nos. 5-23-42, 5-23-43

Legal Analysis

{¶16} As the State notes in its brief, Treece did not renew his objection to

the joinder of these cases at the close of evidence. For this reason, plain error review

applies herein. See State v. Mitchell, 2025-Ohio-2772, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.). We begin

by noting that the two incidents that gave rise to all three of the charges occurred

during the course of Treece’s relationship with A.K. See State v. Wright, 2018-

Ohio-130, ¶ 2, 17 (6th Dist.).

{¶17} Further, the two incidents also occurred in the same location and

involved the same victim. See State v. Williams, 2003-Ohio-6143, ¶ 42 (5th Dist.).

While the investigation into the initial charges against Treece was still ongoing,

A.K. discovered the video of him committing sexual battery. As a result, Officer

Hackworth ended up participating in the investigation of both of these incidents and

testifying at trial about this entire process.

{¶18} However, Treece argues on appeal that joinder of these cases was

prejudicial. To support this argument, he points to the fact that an expert witness

testified about some technical matters related to the video recording of him

committing sexual battery in Case No. 23-CR-58. Treece asserts that the evidence

presented at trial was not simple and direct because this expert did not testify about

the charges in Case No. 22-CR-520 and was not a necessary witness in both cases.

{¶19} This Court has previously “held that evidence of multiple offenses is

‘simple and direct’ where, for example, the offenses involved different victims,

-7- Case Nos. 5-23-42, 5-23-43

different incidents or factual scenarios, and different witnesses.” (Emphasis added.)

State v. Rawlins, 2024-Ohio-1733, ¶ 17 (3d Dist.). Thus, the fact that joined cases

may require different witnesses does not, by itself, establish that evidence presented

at trial is not simple and direct but may even suggest the opposite. See State v.

Dantzler, 2015-Ohio-3641, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.).

{¶20} Turning to the charges that were tried together, we note that the types

of crimes from these two cases were “wholly distinct and different from each other.”

State v. Prade, 139 Ohio App.3d 676, 687 (9th Dist. 2000). The primary evidence

for the charge in Case No. 2023-CR-58 was a video recording of Treece committing

the offense of sexual battery on September 14, 2022.

{¶21} In contrast, the charges in Case No. 2022-CR-520 involved evidence

of A.K. being punched and strangled on the night of November 18, 2022. This

included A.K.’s description of being assaulted; the testimony of the responding

officers; pictures of the crime scene; and evidence of her physical injuries. Given

the differences between the types of offenses in these two cases, the evidence

presented at trial was not susceptible to conflation or confusion.

{¶22} Finally, the jury instructions directed the jurors “to consider each of

the charges separately” and stated that a “decision on one [charge] does not impact

. . . the others in any way.” (Tr. 638). See State v. York, 2022-Ohio-1626, ¶ 35 (3d

Dist.). In general, appellate courts presume that a jury followed the trial court’s

instructions. Rawlins, 2024-Ohio-1733, at ¶ 26. Nothing in the record leads us to

-8- Case Nos. 5-23-42, 5-23-43

dispense with this presumption. In fact, the jurors returned a verdict of not guilty

on the charge of attempted murder, suggesting “they were able to ‘segregate the

proof’ for the various alleged offenses and draw separate conclusions for each of

the different counts that were tried.” Glaeser, 2025-Ohio-2386, at ¶ 31, quoting

Bradshaw, 2023-Ohio-1244, at ¶ 15.

{¶23} Having examined the materials in the record, we conclude that the

evidence presented at trial to substantiate the charges from these two cases was

simple and direct. The argument raised by Treece on appeal fails to establish plain

error. Accordingly, the sole assignment of error is overruled.

Conclusion

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

assigned and argued, the judgments of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas

are affirmed.

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

-9- Case Nos. 5-23-42, 5-23-43

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 judgments of the

trial court are 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

William R. Zimmerman, Judge

DATED: /hls

-10-