State v. Hale
2014 Ohio 262
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Hale indicted on 36 counts of pandering sexually oriented matters involving a minor; offenses span 2009–2012.
- Hale pled guilty to Counts One and Two in exchange for dismissal of 34 counts and a recommended sentence of 14 years.
- Trial court imposed consecutive seven-year terms on Counts One and Two, totaling 14 years.
- At sentencing, judge emailed prosecutors and defense to clarify facts about other potential victims and ages of victims depicted in photos.
- Defense objected to use of presentence information and age in PSI; court referenced the PSI and other uncharged conduct in identifying harm and victims.
- Hale appeals raising three assignments of error challenging the sentencing process and the sufficiency of the grounds for consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court complied with sentencing requirements. | State argued the court properly considered the PSI and other relevant information. | Hale contends the court independently investigated and relied on disputed PSI facts. | No reversible error; court acted within its discretion. |
| Whether the court made proper findings under R.C. 2929.14(C) before consecutive sentences. | State contends findings were made and codified in the judgment. | Hale argues mandatory findings were not properly recorded. | Consecutive findings satisfied; error not shown. |
| Whether the 14-year sentence was supported by the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12 and related provisions. | State asserts multiple factors supported a long term given scope and victims. | Hale claims lack of substantial evidence for great or unusual harm and for reliance on disputed facts. | Court’s 14-year sentence upheld; findings supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20 (Ohio 1989) (permits use of PSI material including uncharged conduct as part of social history)
- State v. Othman, 149 Ohio App.3d 82 (8th Dist. 2002) (trial court may acknowledge disputed PSI information in sentencing)
- State v. Williamson, 5th Dist. Richland No. 04 CA 75 (2005-Ohio-3524) (harmless-error analysis discussed for failure to make specific findings)
- State v. Hites, 2012-Ohio-1892 (3d Dist. Hardin) (consecutive-sentence findings required by statute)