State v. Dehner, 2013 Ohio 3576

Victim K.S. lived with her father, grandmother, and defendant Richard Dehner (her step-grandfather). Abuse began when she was about eight and escalated through adolescence.
Alleged conduct included repeated sexual touching when K.S. was under 13 (buttocks, breasts), digital penetration, cunnilingus, attempted intercourse, forced oral sex, and anal digital penetration over several years.
K.S. eventually disclosed to school personnel; a controlled police call recorded Dehner acknowledging the conduct and urging concealment.
Dehner was indicted on one count of gross sexual imposition and seven counts of rape, tried by jury, convicted of gross sexual imposition and six rape counts.
Sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment (three years for GSI, seven years on each rape count, imposed consecutively) plus a $20,000 fine; designated a Tier III sex offender. Dehner appealed raising four assignments of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dehner)	Held
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	Victim testimony, controlled call, and corroborating investigation evidence were credible and sufficient	K.S. was not credible and state lacked corroboration	Court rejected defendant's manifest-weight claim; convictions affirmed
Whether consecutive sentences were improper	Consecutive terms were necessary to protect public, punish, and reflect seriousness; court made required findings	Consecutive sentences were disproportionate / improperly imposed	Court found trial court made required findings and record supported consecutive terms; affirmed
Whether seven-year terms (for first-degree rape) were an abuse / unlawful	Sentences were within statutory range and court considered required factors	Seven-year terms were excessive / an abuse of discretion	Court held individual seven-year terms within statutory range and not contrary to law; affirmed
Whether imposition of $20,000 fine violated statutory requirement to consider ability to pay	Court considered PSI and thus the offender's present/future ability to pay	Trial court failed to consider ability to pay	Court found PSI reviewed and no objection raised; trial court complied with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5); fine upheld

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Eskridge, 38 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1988) (force element in rape may be subtle; victim's will can be overcome by authority or duress)