State v. Goins
2013 Ohio 263
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Goins indicted in late 2011 on multiple counts of rape with SVP specifications and kidnapping with sexual motivation and SVP specs arising from alleged sex with his daughter.
- In February 2012 Goins withdrew his prior plea and pled guilty to two counts of rape with SVP specs deleted; all other charges nolled.
- Trial court sentenced Goins to six years (first count) and eight years (second count) consecutive, for a total of 14 years in prison, plus a mandatory five years of postrelease control and Tier III designation.
- Goins challenged the sentence, arguing the trial court failed to apply the HB 86 changes and to make proper statutory findings for consecutive sentences.
- At sentencing, the court considered the PSI, psychiatric clinic report, victim-family letters, and the purposes and principles of sentencing, including seriousness and recidivism factors.
- Appellate court affirmed the sentence, concluding the court conducted a thorough, textually compliant analysis and properly considered R.C. 2929.12 factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Goins argues HB 86 was not properly applied and findings were lacking. | Goins' argument is misplaced; court applied HB 86 and made required findings. | Consecutive sentences and findings complied with the statute. |
| Consideration of mitigating and other 2929.12 factors | Goins asserts the trial court ignored mitigating factors (forgiveness, mental health, past abuse, low reoffense risk). | Court properly considered the 2929.12 factors and did not need specific language to show consideration. | Court properly considered the 2929.12 factors; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 2012-Ohio-2508 (8th Dist. 2012) (meaningful review of sentencing decisions by appellate courts)
- State v. Hites, 2012-Ohio-1892 (3d Dist. 2012) (guidance on appellate review of sentencing under HB 86)
- State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 (1999) (requires only that required findings be reflected in the record; not talismanic language)