State v. Carmel
2017 Ohio 7589
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Jack Carmel pled guilty to five counts of gross sexual imposition against two granddaughters under age 12.
- Trial court initially imposed consecutive 36-month terms on each count (total 15 years); this Court reversed because the court failed to make required consecutive-sentence findings and remanded.
- On remand the trial court held a re-sentencing hearing, reviewed a presentence investigation and a psychosexual evaluation, and again imposed a total 15-year sentence (consecutive 36-month terms).
- Carmel appealed, arguing the 15-year sentence was unreasonable, disproportionate, and inconsistent with sentences for similar offenders in Summit County in violation of R.C. 2929.11(B) and constitutional protections.
- The record on appeal did not include the presentence investigation or psychosexual evaluation; the trial court expressly referenced and relied on those documents at re-sentencing.
- The Ninth District affirmed, holding that because Carmel failed to include those materials in the appellate record, the court must presume regularity and cannot find clear-and-convincing evidence to overturn the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carmel) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 15-year aggregate sentence is unreasonable or inconsistent with R.C. 2929.11(B) | Carmel: Sentence is disproportionate and inconsistent with other local GSI sentences over ~5.5 years | State: Sentence is within statutory range and supported by presentence report and psychosexual evaluation; trial court properly applied sentencing factors | Affirmed: Appeal denied because appellant failed to include PSI and psychosexual evaluation in record; court presumes regularity and cannot find clear-and-convincing evidence to disturb sentence |
| Whether appellate review can evaluate consistency without full record | Carmel: Comparative sentencing data show inconsistency | State: Trial court’s reliance on documents (not in record) prevents meaningful appellate comparison | Held: Appellant bears burden to provide full record; absent it, appellate court will presume proceedings were regular and decline to modify sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate standard: vacate/modify felony sentence only upon clear-and-convincing demonstration that statutory findings lack record support or sentence is contrary to law)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence: produces firm belief or conviction in trier of fact)