State v. Cochran
2017 Ohio 983
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Kermeth M. Cochran, III was indicted on multiple counts of gross sexual imposition and one misdemeanor; he pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition (Count III) pursuant to a plea agreement and other counts were dismissed.
- The State recited facts at plea; court was informed Cochran had a prior gross sexual imposition conviction, making a mandatory prison term applicable under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4).
- Cochran acknowledged mandatory imprisonment and Tier Two sex-offender classification; PSI and sentencing memoranda were prepared, and counsel raised Cochran’s mental-health issues (bipolar disorder, SSDI) as mitigation.
- The State argued lack of remorse, a lengthy criminal history, prior prison terms, and recommended the maximum mandatory 60-month term; the court found the offense was the worst form and Cochran likely to reoffend.
- Trial court imposed the mandatory maximum 60-month prison term; Cochran appealed pro se arguing the court ignored his mental-health mitigation and imposed a "boilerplate" maximum sentence, violating sentencing principles and protections against cruel and unusual punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion/violated law by imposing the 60‑month mandatory maximum given Cochran’s mental‑health mitigation | State: court considered PSI and mitigation; record supports findings; aggravating factors outweigh mitigation | Cochran: court failed to meaningfully consider his untreated mental‑health conditions and available alternatives; sentence is excessive/cruel | Court: Affirmed — record supports the court’s findings and sentence is not contrary to law |
| Whether the appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits modification absent clear and convincing showing the record does not support the sentence | State: sentencing decision stands unless defendant shows by clear and convincing evidence the sentence is contrary to law or unsupported | Cochran: (implicitly) contends sentencing record was inadequate and court did not properly apply statutory sentencing purposes | Court: Applied R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); found no clear-and-convincing basis to disturb sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. King, 992 N.E.2d 491 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court not required to state reasons for imposing max sentence within statutory range)
- State v. Mathis, 846 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when imposing felony sentences)
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (appellate relief under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) only when sentence is contrary to law or unsupported by the record)
- State v. Leopard, 957 N.E.2d 55 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court’s discretion and consideration of statutory sentencing policies)