2014 Ohio 1377
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant D.M.J. was indicted on 12 counts, including two counts of rape and ten counts of gross sexual imposition, involving three sisters under age 13.
- Appellant pled, using an Alford plea, to Count 1 and to Counts 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, all gross sexual imposition offenses, with the court imposing a guilty verdict and scheduling sentencing.
- The trial court sentenced Appellant to a mandatory five-year term on Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5; five years on Counts 6 and 7 served concurrently with each other and the others, for a total of 20 years.
- Consecutive sentences were imposed without explicit findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
- Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting no obvious appealable error but raising a possible assignment about the mandatory nature of the sentence.
- The appellate court found error in the trial court’s failure to make the required consecutive-sentence findings and remanded for resentencing with appointment of new counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2907.05(C)(2)(a) mandates a prison term | State contends corroborating evidence triggers mandatory sentencing | D.M.J. argues Apprendi/Blakely concerns require jury finding of corroboration | Corroboration triggers mandatory sentence; upheld as proper |
| Whether consecutive sentences were legally imposed without required findings | State asserts findings were not necessary or not properly recorded | D.M.J. did not object; issues waived except plain error | Failure to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings renders sentence contrary to law; remand for resentencing with proper findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. North, 2013-Ohio-4607 (2013) (corroborating-evidence provision not identical to Apprendi facts; not unconstitutional)
- State v. Bevly, 2013-Ohio-1352 (2013) (R.C. 2907.05(C)(2)(a) not require victim testimony to trigger mandatory sentence)
- State v. F.R., 2014-Ohio-799 (2014) (upholds statutory interpretation of corroboration requirement)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework for Anders review)