State v. Cisco
2013 Ohio 5412
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Scott Cisco pleaded guilty to one count of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)) and one count of abduction (R.C. 2905.02(A)(2)) pursuant to a negotiated plea; other counts were dismissed.
- At plea/allocution Cisco admitted he raped a 17‑year‑old victim after meeting her online and that he knew her age; he stated the victim was bound for about 15 minutes and then released.
- A presentence investigation report (P.S.I.)—made part of the record—contained the victim’s statements that Cisco bound and gagged her, sexually assaulted her repeatedly, hid her clothes and phone, and left her bound when he left for work the next day; the victim later escaped and called police.
- At sentencing the trial court considered the P.S.I. and concluded the rape and abduction did not merge under R.C. 2941.25 because the victim was left bound when Cisco left for work (separate conduct/separate animus).
- The court sentenced Cisco to 11 years for rape and a consecutive 36 months for abduction (maximum on each count); Cisco appealed, arguing (1) the trial court improperly relied on hearsay from the P.S.I. for the merger decision and (2) the court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive maximum sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cisco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rape and abduction must merge under R.C. 2941.25 | Rape and abduction do not merge because P.S.I. facts show separate conduct/animus (victim left bound when defendant left for work) | Merger required; court should be limited to facts in defendant’s allocution and not rely on hearsay P.S.I. statements | Trial court properly considered the P.S.I.; offenses do not merge (separate conduct and animus) |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing maximum consecutive sentences | Consecutive maximum sentences were necessary to punish and protect the public; findings required by statute were made and supported by record (victim trauma, seriousness) | Sentence excessive; characterizes conduct as consensual BDSM play and notes defendant’s apology | Court complied with statutory sentencing review and made required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); consecutive maximum terms affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (trial court must merge allied offenses of similar import at sentencing)
- State v. Mughni, 33 Ohio St.3d 65, 514 N.E.2d 870 (Ohio 1987) (defendant bears burden to show entitlement to merger)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (two‑step appellate review of felony sentences: legality then abuse of discretion)
- State v. Sims, 184 Ohio App.3d 741, 922 N.E.2d 298 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (trial court may rely on P.S.I. for sentencing; defendant may challenge inaccuracies but bears burden)