State v. Jones
2017 Ohio 9020
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Cardell Jones, in his mid-30s, engaged in a ~2.5‑year sexual relationship with a girl who was under 16 while he lived with and dated her mother; two children were born of the relationship.
- Jones pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual battery under R.C. 2907.03(A)(5) (incest with a child) and one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor under R.C. 2907.04(A); all third‑degree felonies.
- He also pleaded to an unrelated weapons offense (one‑year maximum); plea deal exposed him to a possible aggregate maximum of 16 years if all sentences ran consecutively.
- At sentencing the court imposed four years on each sexual offense to run consecutively and 12 months on the weapons count concurrent, for a 12‑year aggregate term.
- Jones appealed, arguing the record did not support the required consecutive‑sentence findings because the sexual relationship was consensual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record supports consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) (harm so great/unusual that consecutive terms necessary) | State: consecutive terms supported by prolonged sexual conduct with an underage victim in defendant's care, resulting in two children | Jones: relationship was consensual, so the harm was not so great or unusual to justify consecutive terms | Affirmed. Court found record supports (b); consent is not a defense to incest with a child and record lacks evidence of victim consent for the sexual battery counts |
| Whether sentencing entry must reflect the trial court's oral findings (nunc pro tunc correction) | State: must correct written entry to reflect oral finding under (b) | Jones: (no specific counter on entry issue) | Remanded for limited purpose: issue a nunc pro tunc entry to include the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) finding as made at sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 (2007) (consent is not a defense/mitigating factor to incest statutes designed to protect children)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must incorporate the required consecutive‑sentence findings in the sentencing entry; nunc pro tunc entry may be used to correct omission)