State v. Baker
2013 Ohio 900
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Craig Dean Baker, age 42, pleaded guilty to four counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (a 14-year-old).
- Baker met the victim online in 2010, engaged in online contact including sexual content, and traveled to Ohio in June 2011.
- He stayed behind the victim’s house, then entered the home when the mother was away and had sex with the girl four times.
- At sentencing, the court imposed six-year terms on each count and ordered concurrent sentences to be served consecutively, totaling 24 years.
- Baker had a prior sex offense conviction in Iowa, was a registered sex offender, and faced substantial aggravating factors given the victim’s age and Baker’s grooming conduct.
- The written plea included a request for concurrent sentencing; the State agreed to stand silent at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion | State argues factors support consecutive terms | Baker contends weights misapplied, should be concurrent | No abuse; consecutive sentences are reasonable given factors |
| Whether counsel was ineffective at sentencing | State alleges adequate representation; no prejudice shown | Baker claims counsel failed to pursue concurrent sentences and mitigating evidence | No reversible error; no showing sentence would differ with different counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (two-step review of felony sentencing; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law)
- State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (Ohio Supreme Court 1997) (ineffective assistance/mitigation considerations in sentencing)
- State v. Adams, 2010-Ohio-1005 (7th Dist.) (defense strategy at sentencing may be tactical; no prejudice established)