State v. J.H.S.
2015 Ohio 254
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Appellant J.H.S. was indicted in Franklin County on four counts of sexual battery and one count of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles; pleaded guilty to four sexual-battery counts.
- Victim R.D. alleged repeated sexual activity with appellant, her biological father, between August and September 2012, including various sex acts at multiple locations.
- A paternity test in 2011 established 99.99% probability appellant was R.D.’s father; appellant corresponded with and briefly admitted sexual activity with RD.
- Police recovered RD’s cell phone with text messages, photos, and videos showing their relationship; appellant claimed it was legal to have sex with RD after age 16.
- The trial court sentenced appellant on March 27, 2014 to 60 months on each count, to run consecutively for a total of 20 years; the judgment entry imposed the sentence.
- On appeal, the court sustained the first assignment of error, remanded for proper R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, and overruled the second and third assignments of error, affirming in part and reversing in part and remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive-sentencing findings | State argues Bonnell compliance required; trial court failed to make specific findings | J.H.S. contends the court made adequate on-the-record findings | Remanded for proper findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) |
| Proportionality and consistency under R.C. 2929.11 | State contends court properly considered sentencing factors | J.H.S. argues lack of proper consideration of R.C. 2929.11 | Not well-taken; court’s consideration supported by record, overruled |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | State argues no prejudice from counsel’s handling | J.H.S. asserts counsel failed to mitigate the sentence | Not well-taken; no reasonable probability of different sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014-Ohio-3177) (requires explicit R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and permits nunc pro tunc correction for omissions of record; not a cure for failure to state findings at sentencing)
- State v. Moore, 2014-Ohio-5135 (2014-Ohio-5135) (discusses 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors and consistency/recidivism considerations)
- State v. Ayers, 2014-Ohio-276 (2014-Ohio-276) (holds failure to make 2929.14(C)(4) findings is plain error on review)
- State v. Wilson, 2013-Ohio-1520 (2013-Ohio-1520) (addresses consequence of not making 2929.14(C)(4) findings when imposing consecutive sentences)
- State v. Jones, 2014-Ohio-3740 (2014-Ohio-3740) (remand for proper 2929.14(C)(4) findings when consecutive sentences imposed without findings)