from Shelby County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No.
S. Reed for Appellant
Timothy S. Sell for Appellee
Defendant-appellant, Gary L. Bynum ("Bynum"),
appeals the October 3, 2018 judgment of sentence of the
Shelby County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
This case arises from a series of incidents in which Bynum
engaged in sexual conduct with O.H., who was between 13 and
14 years old at all times relevant to Bynum's offenses.
(See Oct. 3, 2018 Tr. at 12). Bynum was O.H.'s
legal guardian. (Id.). Starting when O.H. was 13
years old, Bynum and O.H. would engage in sexual intercourse
and other sexual acts two or three times per month.
(Id.). This continued for nearly a year until
Bynum's wife learned about the abuse after reading
O.H.'s diary. (Id.).
On May 31, 2018, the Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Bynum
on 13 counts: Counts One through Twelve of sexual battery in
violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(5), (B), third-degree felonies,
and Count Thirteen of intimidation of a victim in a criminal
case in violation of R.C. 2921.04(B)(1), (D), a third-degree
felony. (Doc. No. 1). On June 7, 2018, Bynum appeared for
arraignment and pleaded not guilty to the counts of the
indictment. (Doc. No. 20).
A change of plea hearing was held on August 13, 2018.
(See Doc. No. 44). Pursuant to a negotiated plea
agreement, Bynum withdrew his previous not guilty pleas and
pleaded guilty to Counts One and Two of the indictment. (Doc.
Nos. 43, 44). In exchange, the State agreed to move for
dismissal of Counts Three through Thirteen of the indictment.
(Doc. Nos. 43, 44). The trial court accepted Bynum's
guilty pleas, found him guilty, and ordered a presentence
investigation. (Doc. No. 44). Furthermore, Counts Three
through Thirteen of the indictment were dismissed.
On October 3, 2018, the trial court sentenced Bynum to 54
months in prison on Count One and 54 months in prison on
Count Two, to be served consecutively for an aggregate term
of 108 months' imprisonment. (Doc. No. 56).
Bynum filed a notice of appeal on November 2, 2018. (Doc. No.
70). He raises two assignments of error, which we will
of Error No. I
sentence imposed by the sentencing court is contrary to law
because it fails to reflect any consideration of the purposes
and principles of felony sentencing contained in Revised Code
§ 2929.11 or the seriousness and recidivism factors of
Revised Code § 2929.12.
of Error No. II
sentencing court committed abuse of discretion when it
imposed maximum and consecutive sentences upon Mr. Bynum, a