State v. Butler
2021 Ohio 603
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Jordan Butler pleaded guilty to: attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (F4), soliciting (F3), and sexual battery (F3) based on conduct involving three 13–14-year-old minors.
- Trial court imposed a 105-month consecutive prison term (15 + 30 + 60 months).
- Butler appealed, arguing the sentence was contrary to law because it was excessive and the court relied on unindicted, disputed prior allegations.
- The PSI and sentencing record showed two prior allegations of sexual misconduct (one from conduct in 2008 disclosed in 2016, and a 2017 allegation); neither resulted in conviction.
- The trial court acknowledged the lack of convictions but cited those allegations, Butler’s criminal history, and in-jail sexual misconduct in assessing recidivism and concluding the offenses were not unlikely to recur.
- The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 105‑month sentence is contrary to law/excessive | State: sentence is within statutory range; court properly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | Butler: sentence excessive; offenses carry no presumption of prison | Affirmed. Court may impose any lawful term and properly considered statutory factors; sentence not contrary to law |
| Whether court improperly considered unindicted, disputed prior allegations at sentencing | State: courts may consider a broad range of information (including uncharged allegations in PSI) when assessing recidivism | Butler: using unindicted, disputed allegations to find likelihood of recurrence made sentence contrary to law | Affirmed. Court could consider those allegations for the narrow R.C. 2929.12(D) "unlikely to recur" determination; other valid recidivism factors supported sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial courts must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 at sentencing)
- State v. Bowser, 926 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (trial court may consider broad range of information, including uncharged conduct, at sentencing)
- State v. Leopold, 957 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (reiterating the requirement to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors)