property. Therefore, the trial court’s imposition of prison terms of three years for the failure-to-comply conviction, 17 months for the conviction on the first count of receiving stolen property and 11 months on the second count of receiving stolen property are all constitutionally permissible under Apprendi and, by extension, Blakely. {¶ 26} Turning to Taylor’s main argument, both Blakely and Apprendi can be distinguished from the instant case, as they deal with the issue of sentencing for a single crime. Courts in Ohio have consistently held that Apprendi does not apply to consecutive sentencing as long as the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for each individual underlying offense. See State v. Carter, 6th Dist. No. L-00-1082, 2002-Ohio-3433, 2002 WL 1436019, at ¶ 25 (<HOLDING>) Accord State v. Gambrel (Feb. 2, 2001), 2nd
holding that appellants two eightyear consecutive sentences for rape because they were each within the tenyear statutory range for a single offense did not violate apprendi holding that the crime of rape is a lesser included offense of the crime of felony murder in the perpetration of rape and that since the latter crime included all of the elements of the former consecutive sentences were therefore improper holding the courts consecutive sentences at the statutory maximum on each count were reasonable because of the gravity of the offense holding apprendi does not apply to consecutive sentencing holding that no apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child when appellant did not dispute that sentence for each count was within statutory range