2014 Ohio 3272
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Gonzalez pleaded guilty to three counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material; four counts were nolle prosed and one dismissed.
- He surreptitiously videotaped three minor females in a tanning salon by placing a cell phone in an air-conditioning vent between June 30 and July 19, 2012.
- The trial court sentenced him to three consecutive five-year terms, totaling 15 years, and classified him as a Tier II sexual offender.
- Appellant appealed challenging the consecutive sentences as disproportionate under R.C. 2929.11–2929.12.
- The court considered the PSR, victim impact statements, and relevant reports, finding the conduct more serious than typical for the offense.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law and within statutory authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is so disproportionate as to be an abuse of discretion | Gonzalez argues the 15-year aggregate term is disproportionate to similar offenses | State contends the court properly weighed 2929.11–2929.12 factors; no need for overt disparity evidence | Not well-taken; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tammerine, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1081, 2014-Ohio-425 (2014-Ohio-425) (standard of review for felony sentences)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912 (2008-Ohio-4912) (presumption of proper consideration of sentencing factors)
- State v. Houston, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-10-027, 2011-Ohio-4689 (2011-Ohio-4689) (consistency in sentencing does not require identical facts)
- State v. Dahms, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-11-028, 2012-Ohio-3181 (2012-Ohio-3181) (factual dissimilarities may justify disproportionate sentences)
- State v. Battle, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-863, 2007-Ohio-1845 (2007-Ohio-1845) (consistency and disparity in sentencing for similar offenses)
- State v. Hayes, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-233, 2009-Ohio-1100 (2009-Ohio-1100) (consideration of factors in sentencing disparity)
- State v. King, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT06-0020, 2006-Ohio-6566 (2006-Ohio-6566) (discusses factual similarities in disproportionate sentencing)