[Cite as State v. Carter,
2025-Ohio-2545.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-24-063
Appellee Trial Court No. 2023 CR 0086
v.
Raymond F. Carter DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: July 18, 2025
…
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and,
David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
…
SULEK, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant Raymond Carter appeals the judgment of the Wood County Court
of Common Pleas, convicting him following a guilty plea to eight counts of pandering
sexually-oriented matter involving a minor or impaired person, one count of pandering
obscenity involving a minor or impaired person, and one count of possessing criminal
tools, and ordering him to serve a total indefinite prison term of 20 to 22.5 years. Carter
challenges the trial court’s decision to order some of the sentences to be served
consecutively to each other and to a separate sentence from another case. Because this
court does not clearly and convincingly find that the trial court’s decision is unsupported
by the record, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
I. Factual Background and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In January 2023, the Perrysburg Police Department received a report from
the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force indicating that someone at Carter’s
residence was possessing, manufacturing, and/or distributing child sexual abuse material.
Carter resided in the home with his partner Dustan Gerschutz. The Perrysburg police
executed a search warrant at the residence on February 2, 2023.
{¶ 3} The police recovered numerous electronic devices containing around 10,000
images and videos depicting child pornography. Carter admitted to downloading the
images and videos over the past 20 years. Some of the videos contained extremely
graphic material, including videos depicting Carter and Gerschutz performing sexual acts
on an infant family member. In his presentence investigation interview, Carter admitted
that he and Gerschutz would get drunk and high before downloading and viewing the
videos.
{¶ 4} On March 1, 2023, the Wood County Grand Jury returned a 13-count
indictment against Carter. Counts 1 through 11 charged him with pandering sexually-
oriented matter involving a minor or impaired person in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(1)
and (C), felonies of the second degree. Count 12 charged him with pandering obscenity
involving a minor or impaired person in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(5) and (C), a
felony of the fourth degree. Count 13 charged him with possessing criminal tools in
violation of R.C. 2923.24(A) and (C), a felony of the fifth degree.
2.
{¶ 5} Carter entered into a plea agreement with the State whereby he agreed to
plead guilty to Counts 4 through 13 and to testify truthfully against Gerschutz. In
exchange, the State agreed to dismiss Counts 1 through 3 and to recommend a prison
sentence of between 15 and 25 years. Carter stipulated to a factual basis for his guilt, so
the State did not provide a description of the offenses. The trial court conducted a
detailed Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, accepted Carter’s pleas, and found him guilty. The
trial court then continued the matter for sentencing and the preparation of a presentence
investigation report.
{¶ 6} At the sentencing hearing, the State noted that Carter possessed thousands of
images of child pornography, some of which was disturbingly homemade and depicted
sexual acts against Gerschutz’s family member. The victim’s family was present in the
courtroom. The State argued that it was one of the worst pandering cases and
recommended a total prison sentence of between 15 and 25 years to be served
consecutively to a prison term imposed for Carter’s conviction for rape in Hancock
County.
{¶ 7} Defense counsel argued for a lighter sentence to be served concurrently with
the one from Hancock County. Counsel noted that Carter had no criminal record, has a
low risk of recidivism, and has been actively engaged in therapy and is showing progress.
Further, counsel argued that the offenses in this case could have rightfully been charged
as fourth-degree felonies, and he recounted numerous other cases throughout Ohio where
the defendants were sentenced to significantly less time in prison for similar offenses.
3.
Carter’s parents also addressed the court and asked for leniency. Finally, Carter spoke
and expressed remorse for his conduct.
{¶ 8} Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Carter to serve an indefinite prison term
of five to seven and one-half years on Counts 4 through 11 and a prison term of one year
on Counts 12 and 13. It ordered Counts 4, 5, 6, and 7 to be served consecutively to one
another, and Counts 8 through 13 to be served concurrently to one another and to Counts
4, 5, 6, and 7, for a total indefinite prison term of 20 to 22.5 years. The trial court further
ordered the sentence to be served consecutive to the life sentence without the possibility
of parole imposed from Hancock County.
{¶ 9} In sentencing him to consecutive sentences, the trial court found that
consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and punish Carter and were
not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the danger that he poses to the
public. It also found that two or more offenses were committed as part of the same
course of conduct and that the harm was so great or unusual that no single term
adequately reflects the seriousness.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 10} Carter timely appeals his judgment of conviction, asserting one assignment
of error for review:
1. The trial court erred to the prejudice of Appellant by imposing a
consecutive sentence that is not supported by the record.
4.
III. Analysis
{¶ 11} This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which
provides, in pertinent part,
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a
sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and
remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate
court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its
discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this
division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings
under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of
section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code,
whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶ 12} Carter challenges the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in
support of consecutive sentences. That section provides,
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:
...
(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.
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Notably, Carter does not argue that the trial court failed to make the
required findings. Instead, he argues that the findings are not supported by the record.
{¶ 13} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) provides that an appellate court may “increase,
reduce, or otherwise modify” consecutive sentences only if it “clearly and convincingly
5.
finds” that the record does not support the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-
sentence findings. The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that “‘clear and convincing
evidence’ is a degree of proof that is greater than a preponderance of the evidence but
less than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard used in criminal cases.” State v.
Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195, ¶ 46, citing State v. Gwynne,
2023-Ohio-3851, ¶ 14. It
“produce[s] in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts
sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford,
161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of
the syllabus.
{¶ 14} Appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court erred on
appeal. State v. Ide, 2024-Ohio-5527, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.). In Glover, the Ohio Supreme
Court recently clarified the high burden appellants must satisfy in order to show that the
imposition of consecutive sentences is not supported by the record, stating:
The appellate-review statute does not require that the appellate court
conclude that the record supports the trial court’s findings before it may
affirm the sentence. Rather, the statute only allows for modification or
vacation only when the appellate court “clearly and convincingly finds”
that the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings. R.C.
2953.08(G)(2)(a). “This language is plain and unambiguous and expresses
the General Assembly’s intent that appellate courts employ a deferential
standard to the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) also ensures that an appellate court does not simply
substitute its judgment for that of a trial court.” Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851,
231 N.E.3d 1109, at ¶ 15 (lead opinion).
(Emphasis added.)
Glover at ¶ 46. This court is mindful, then, of this high burden in
reviewing Carter’s argument that the imposition of consecutive sentences is not
supported by the record.
6.
{¶ 15} In his assignment of error, Carter simply argues that “[a]lthough the
presentence investigation report is expansive, no statement of facts was placed on the
record at the time of Appellant’s plea hearing and there was no reference to any facts
underlying the charges/convictions at Appellant’s sentencing hearing.” He concludes,
therefore, that the record does not support the imposition of consecutive sentences. R.C.
2953.08(F)(1), however, provides that the record to be reviewed on appeal shall include
“[a]ny presentence, psychiatric, or other investigative report that was submitted to the
court in writing before the sentence was imposed.”
{¶ 16} The trial court noted at sentencing that “the minors that were depicted in
the images and the videos that you had certainly suffered as a result of the creation and
keeping of those images and videos,” and that “tragically your relationship with those
minors also facilitated the crime that brought you here today and which you pled guilty
to.” Further, the trial court recognized that “the same victims could be victimized again
every time somebody views these images, every time anyone views these videos, and
every time you viewed them, every time [Gerschutz] viewed them.” Indeed, “[b]oth the
Supreme Courts of the United States and Ohio have unequivocally found that children are
seriously harmed by the mere possession of pornography in which they are depicted.”
State v. Smith, 2021-Ohio-4234, ¶ 26 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Maynard,
132 Ohio
App.3d 820, 827 (9th Dist. 1999); State v. Meadows,
28 Ohio St.3d 43, 49-50 (1986).
{¶ 17} Upon review, considering the statements made during the sentencing
hearing and the presentence investigation report’s graphic descriptions of the
7.
pornography, this court does not clearly and convincingly find that the trial court’s
findings in support of imposing consecutive sentences were unsupported by the record.
{¶ 18} Accordingly, Carter’s assignment of error is not well-taken.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 19} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Wood County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. Carter is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Gene A. Zmuda, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J.
____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
8.
