State v. Henry, 2017 Ohio 2902

Background

James Henry was indicted (2011) on six counts involving sexual offenses against T.H., his live-in girlfriend’s daughter: 2 counts gross sexual imposition, 3 counts rape, 1 count attempted rape; counts 3–5 included a force specification. Trial (Aug. 2015) resulted in convictions on all counts; jury found victim was under 13 on each count and found force on Counts 3–5.
Sentencing: concurrent life terms (described by the court as “LIFE which LIFE is Mandatory”) on Counts 3–4, "mandatory 25 to life" on Count 5, five-year terms on Counts 1–2, and eight years on Count 6; Counts 1–5 concurrent with each other and consecutive to Count 6. Henry classified as a sexually oriented offender.
Henry appealed asserting: (1) improper retrospective application of post-2006 statutory penalty (life without parole) to pre-2006 offenses, (2) enhanced life penalty applied without jury finding victim was under ten years old, and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (several specific alleged deficiencies).
The State argued the sentence as imposed allowed parole eligibility after ten years and relied on out-of-record computation by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction; also argued jury made required findings.
The Sixth District reviewed the sentencing entry (not extrinsic agency materials), statutory language in effect at the time of the offenses, the verdict forms, and multiple alleged counsel errors; it affirmed the convictions and sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Retroactive sentencing / which statutory penalty applies	Henry: court imposed post-2006 "mandatory life" (life without parole) for pre-2006 offenses, violating ex post facto protections	State: sentencing did not impose life without parole; department’s computation shows parole eligibility after 10 years	Court: sentencing entry does not show life without parole; under the statute and R.C. 2967.13(A)(5) parole eligibility after 10 years presumed — no retroactive sentencing error
2. Enhanced life term without jury finding victim <10	Henry: enhanced life penalty in effect applied without jury finding victim was under 10 as required by statute	State: jury and verdict forms show required findings (force and under-ten)	Court: verdict forms did not find victim <10, but jury found force; statute permits life where force OR victim under 10, so life term was authorized and proper
3. Failure to hold R.C. 2907.02(E) hearing / exclusion of victim sexual-history evidence	Henry: counsel ineffective for failing to respond to state’s motion in limine and failing to secure hearing on admissibility of prior sexual-assault evidence	State: motion sought to bar sexual-activity evidence under rape-shield; court offered hearing if defendant had admissible evidence; evidence at issue was irrelevant and excluded	Court: counsel’s choices reasonable; state’s motion lacked specifics, evidence was excluded as irrelevant — no deficient performance or prejudice
4. Other ineffective-assistance claims (expert exclusion; witness competency; cumulative error)	Henry: counsel did not respond to motion to exclude defense psychologist’s report; failed to challenge victim competency; cumulative errors warrant new trial	State: counsel’s strategy reasonable (report dubious); no record evidence victim was incompetent; errors not prejudicial	Court: strategic decisions were reasonable; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice; cumulative-error claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Kole, 92 Ohio St.3d 303 (discussing Strickland standard as adopted in Ohio)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (defining prejudice and "reasonable probability" standard under Strickland)
State v. Cotton, 113 Ohio App.3d 125 (noting mental illness does not automatically render witness incompetent)
State v. Wildman, 145 Ohio St. 379 (competency standard: ability to perceive events and understand oath)