State v. Hites
2012 Ohio 1892
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hites, a teacher's aide and coach, sexually abused a 13-year-old student; actions occurred on school premises.
- Prosecutor filed two counts of sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(7)); Hites pled guilty to both before indictment.
- Sentencing court imposed eight years total (two four-year terms consecutive) and classified Hites as a Tier III offender.
- HB 86 reforms required explicit findings for consecutive sentences; court made findings and explained rationale at hearing and in judgment.
- Hites appeals challenging the sentence as excessive, inconsistent with similar cases, and arguing reliance on new facts and unconstitutional statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the eight-year sentence contrary to law due to inconsistency with similar cases? | Hites argues sentence is disproportionate to similar offenses. | Hites contends lack of consistency with comparable cases; excessive punishment. | No; court applied statutory guidelines and found it within range and not disproportionate. |
| Did the court rely on new material facts at sentencing without allowing response? | Victim parents' statement introduced new facts affecting sentence. | Response opportunity was provided; new facts did not alter relied-upon bases. | No prejudicial error; court allowed response and relied on record-based factors. |
| Were the sentences void due to unconstitutional statutes following Foster/Hodge developments? | Foster-era provisions invalid; sentences may be unconstitutional. | HB 86 revisions render prior concerns obsolete; valid under current law. | Overruled; HB 86 governs sentencing; statutes constitutional as interpreted post-Hodge. |
| Is the eight-year sentence unduly harsh or unsupported by the record? | Sentence not supported by record in light of offender's history. | Record shows trust abuse, multiple acts, and harm justifying term. | Overruled; court properly weighed factors and evidence; not unduly harsh. |
| Did the court err in applying the 'sentencing package' doctrine in determining aggregate term? | Consecutive terms used to reach omnibus sentence for rapes-like severity. | Context and aggravating facts justify consecutive terms; no improper omnibus sentencing. | Overruled; proper basis in findings and record; no improper 'sentencing package' use. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Daughenbaugh, 2007-Ohio-5774 (3d Dist. No. 16–07–07 (2007)) (apparent standard for reviewing sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G))
- State v. Carter, 2004-Ohio-1181 (11th Dist. (2004)) (guidance on appellate review of sentencing)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (rejected 'sentencing package' concept in omnibus form)
- State v. Bell, 2005-Ohio-655 (2d Dist. No. 2004-CA-5) (consistency concerns in sentencing; data limitations)
- State v. Roberts, 2005-Ohio-28 (8th Dist. No. 84070) (consistency and data considerations in sentencing)
- State v. McClendon, 2012-Ohio-1410 (7th Dist. No. 11 MA 15) (case-specific sentencing considerations)
- State v. Hall, 2008-Ohio-6228 (10th Dist. No. 2008-AP-) (case-wide application of sentencing guidelines)
- State v. Saur, 2011-Ohio-6662 (10th Dist. No. 10AP-) (courts must apply statutory sentencing guidelines)
- State v. Hayes, 2009-Ohio-1100 (10th Dist. No. 08AP-233) (rejects use of dissimilar case comparisons to attack sentences)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010) (HB 86 amendments; Foster concerns resolved in light of Ice)