Login | June 04, 2026
7th District appellate court partially reverses ‘farm of death’ case
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: August 20, 2021
A Belmont County trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences in an animal cruelty case, according to the 7th District Court of Appeals.
Defendant-appellant Shania Wells appealed after she was sentenced to the maximum sentence following her November 2020 guilty plea to one felony count of cruelty to companion animals. The trial court ordered her to serve the sentence consecutive to a sentence she was already serving for a probation violation in an unrelated case.
On Jan. 9, 2020, humane officers investigated the farm property where Wells and her mother lived. Charges of animal cruelty were brought against both Wells and her mother.
On Feb. 11, 2020, Wells was sentenced to 18 months in jail on a probation violation in a previous, unrelated misdemeanor case involving cruelty to animals. On March 5, 2020, a grand jury indicted Wells on three counts of cruelty against companion animals, fifth-degree felonies, and two counts of cruelty to animals, second-degree misdemeanors.
Wells was sentenced to the maximum 12 months behind bars and ordered to serve her felony prison term after she completed the misdemeanor jail sentence she was currently serving on the unrelated probation violation. The court also banned her from being around, owning, or controlling any animals for life and ordered appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $435.
The 7th District granted her motion to give the appeal expedited consideration since her felony sentence would likely expire before the appeal was over.
Wells argued that pursuant to R.C. 2929.41(A), a jail sentence for a misdemeanor is to be served concurrent with a prison sentence for a felony. She relied on State v. Polus, 145 Ohio St.3d 266, 2016-Ohio-655, 48 N.E.3d 553, in support of her argument.
In Polus, Polus was first convicted of misdemeanor receiving stolen property and felony receiving stolen property. The trial court sentenced him to serve an 11-month prison term for the felony and a six-month term for the misdemeanor consecutively. In a second, separate case, Polus was convicted of two felony counts of receiving stolen property. The trial court imposed two 11-month prison terms for these convictions and ordered Polus to serve them consecutively to one another and consecutive to the terms imposed in the first case.
The 6th District later agreed with Polus that a sentencing order requiring a jail term for a misdemeanor to be served consecutively to a prison sentence for a felony is contrary to R.C. 2929.41(A). The 6th District modified the trial court's sentencing order so that the misdemeanor jail term was consecutive to the felony prison term.
The 7th District reversed the lower court’s findings on consecutive sentences. The record will now reflect that Wells’ 12-month prison sentence is to be served concurrent to her misdemeanor sentence on the probation violation.
However, the trial court’s judgment was affirmed as to the maximum sentence.
In his majority opinion, 7th District Judge Gene Donofrio noted the trial court reviewed the principles and purposes of sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, correspondence from appellant, correspondence from the humane officer, and the presentence investigation.
“The court then read from the PSI, noting the following,” Judge Donofrio wrote. “Two dogs were hungry and thin. A third dog was found deceased and emaciated. Two dead calves were found. Old bones from an unknown animal were found. There were remnants of an animal without hooves. An emaciated cat was found. A small deer was stuffed in a bucket.
“The two surviving dogs had various problems including hookworms, roundworms, no muscle tone, and starvation. The court also noted several comments from the humane officer. She stated that at appellant and her mother’s farm, the officers found over 60 dead animals. She stated that the farm was called the `farm of death.’ “
In sentencing appellant to a maximum 12-month prison term, the trial court found that community control sanctions were not consistent with the principle and purposes of sentencing, despite the fact none of the statutory aggravating factors were present.
Appellate judges Cheryl L. Waite and David A. D’Apolito concurred. The case is cited State v. Wells, 2021-Ohio-2343.