State v. Bowers
2018 Ohio 30
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Defendant Adam Bowers was convicted by a jury of raping a child under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) with a specification that the victim was under ten; this is Bowers’s second appeal after a prior remand for resentencing.
- On remand the trial court declined life-without-parole and, after making a judicial finding that Bowers purposely compelled the victim by force or threat, imposed an indefinite term of 25 years to life under R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(c).
- The trial court believed only two options were available on remand (25 years to life or life without parole) and was unaware that a 15-years-to-life option existed under R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(b) because the victim was under ten.
- Bowers argued his sentence was contrary to law because the trial court (not the jury) made the factual finding necessary to impose the 25-year minimum, raising Sixth Amendment issues under Alleyne/Apprendi.
- The majority held that three sentencing options were available on remand—15 years to life, 25 years to life, or life without parole—and reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court was unaware of the 15-to-life option.
- The court also held judicial fact-finding to make the 25-year middle option available did not violate Alleyne/Apprendi because that finding neither raised the statutory floor nor the ceiling of the overall sentencing range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had available sentencing options under R.C. 2971.03(B)(1) for rape of a child under ten | State: 25-to-life and life-without-parole were available; court has discretion among options | Bowers: 15-to-life was the appropriate floor; court lacked authority to impose 25-to-life absent jury finding | Court: Three options were available—15-to-life, 25-to-life, or life without parole; trial court erred by not recognizing 15-to-life and sentence reversed and remanded |
| Whether a judge may make a factual finding of ‘force’ to trigger the 25-year minimum without a jury verdict (Sixth Amendment/Alleyne/Apprendi) | State: Judicial fact-finding of force is permissible because it produces a middle option and does not change statutory floor or ceiling | Bowers: Court’s finding of force increased the mandatory minimum from 15 to 25 years and thus violated Alleyne/Apprendi | Court: Judicial fact-finding here did not alter the statutory floor or ceiling and therefore did not violate Alleyne/Apprendi; dissent disagreed, arguing Alleyne controls |
| Whether ambiguity in the sentencing statute requires application of rule of lenity | State: Even if 25-to-life is available, ambiguity doesn’t remove 15-to-life option | Bowers: Ambiguity should favor the lesser (15-to-life) | Court: Applied plain language and rule of lenity to conclude 15-to-life remains available alongside 25-to-life |
| Remedy when trial court was unaware of available sentencing option | State: Remand not necessary if sentence otherwise lawful | Bowers: Remand required because court might have chosen 15-to-life if aware | Court: Reversed and remanded for resentencing among the three available options because court might have selected 15-to-life |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing statutory penalty range are elements for the jury to find)
- State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 (apply plain language of statute when unambiguous)
- State v. Elmore, 122 Ohio St.3d 472 (rule of lenity in ambiguous sentencing statutes)
- State v. Willan, 144 Ohio St.3d 94 (discussion of Alleyne and Apprendi principles in Ohio sentencing law)