State v. Clemons
2014 Ohio 4248
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Takeya Clemons videotaped consensual sex with a 16-year-old and posted the video to Facebook.
- Clemons was indicted for pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor (R.C. 2907.322(A)(1)), a second-degree felony.
- Clemons pled guilty and the trial court sentenced her to two years in prison, to run concurrently with a separate one-year sentence; she was designated a Tier II sex offender.
- At sentencing the court reviewed the PSI, which recounted Clemons’s admission that she videotaped the sexual activity and posted it out of spite; the victim’s family reported harm and distress from the posting.
- Clemons appealed, arguing the sentence was unlawful because the court relied on uncharged conduct (her sexual activity with a minor) or misunderstood the charges.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the court permissibly considered uncharged conduct as part of sentencing and that the sentence was within statutory range and not contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is unlawful because the trial court considered uncharged conduct (sexual activity with the minor) or misunderstood the charges | State: The court properly considered the PSI and the effects of posting the video; sentence is within statutory limits and supported by record | Clemons: The court relied on uncharged conduct (engaging in sex with a minor) or misunderstood that she was charged with sexual activity, rendering the sentence unlawful | The appellate court held the sentencing court did not err: uncharged acts may be considered at sentencing when not the sole basis for the sentence; the court focused on the posting and harm caused, and the sentence is not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rodeffer, 5 N.E.3d 1069 (Ohio App. 2013) (appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) discussed)
- State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (standards for reviewing felony sentences within statutory range)
- State v. Bowser, 926 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio App. 2010) (sentencing courts may consider a broad range of information, not limited to conviction evidence)
- State v. Scheer, 816 N.E.2d 602 (Ohio App. 2004) (a court may consider uncharged but undisputed conduct in sentencing)