State v. F.R.
2014 Ohio 799
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant F.R. pled guilty to four counts of gross sexual imposition (two involving a victim under 13) and admitted corroborating evidence existed.
- The State agreed to nolle prosequi one remaining charged count; sentencing was set after presentence investigation.
- Exhibit A, a recording or disk of appellant's admission, was admitted as corroboration for the relevant counts.
- Trial court sentenced to 60, 48, and 18 months across counts with some runs concurrent and others consecutive for a combined nine-year term.
- Appellant challenged the mandatory-corroboration provisions and the adequacy of the findings for consecutive sentences; the court of appeals reviewed under Bevly and North.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of 2907.05(C)(2)(a) requiring corroboration | State argues corroboration is a sentencing factor and constitutional | F.R. contends jury should decide corroboration and statute is irrational | Constitutionality and application upheld; corroboration is a sentencing factor |
| Rational basis and equal protection of 2907.05(C)(2)(a) | State relies on Bevly/North to support mandatory treatment | F.R. argues no rational basis for classification | Statutory scheme sustained; no reversal for rationality concerns |
| Victim testimony required to trigger mandatory term | State maintains no additional victim testimony required beyond corroboration | F.R. argues victim testimony should be required | No requirement for victim testimony beyond corroboration to trigger term |
| Record of corroboration finding under 2907.05(C)(2)(a) | Stipulation and admission of exhibit A satisfy corroboration findings | No explicit on-record finding on corroboration | Finding on corroboration satisfied by stipulation and admission of exhibit A |
| Consecutive sentences findings under 2929.14(C)(4) | Court properly imposed consecutive terms given findings | Court failed to make required three statutory findings | Plain error; remand for resentencing to make required findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bevly, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-471 (Mar. 28, 2013) (corroboration as sentencing factor; not jury-determined)
- State v. North, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-110 (Oct. 17, 2013) (Alleyne-related; corroboration not jury-determined for mandatory term)
- State v. Blocker, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-313 (2007-Ohio-144) (stipulations bind parties and adjudicate facts for remaining issues)