State v. Lawrence
2020 Ohio 855
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Appellant Dustin T. Lawrence was indicted for multiple sexual offenses (rape, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping) and domestic violence based on allegations by S.K., a 16‑year‑old, stemming from events of March 15–17, 2016.
- A jury convicted Lawrence; the trial court initially imposed an aggregate 33‑year prison term.
- While his direct appeal was pending, Lawrence filed a postconviction relief (PCR) petition alleging sentencing relied on inaccurate PSI information and ineffective assistance; the trial court granted relief on the sentencing claim.
- The original trial judge recused after disclosing in chambers that a family member had been a victim of a similar crime; the case was reassigned and Lawrence was resentenced in 2019 to an aggregate 27 years.
- On appeal Lawrence raised (1) failure to disclose potential judicial bias and deprivation of an impartial judge, (2) manifest weight challenge to his rape convictions, and (3) claimed sentencing error for the court’s consideration of his lack of remorse while he maintained innocence and had an appeal pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lawrence) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial nondisclosure/early disclosure of potential bias | Any judicial‑bias claim was waived; no evidence of bias at trial | Judge had a personal connection (daughter victim of a similar crime) and failed to disclose early; entitled to new trial | Waived for failure to amend PCR; alternatively no evidence of bias at trial — assignments overruled |
| Denial of trial before an impartial judge (due process) | Judge presumed impartial; alleged incidents (recess, use of term “victim,” rulings) do not show bias | Judge’s conduct and statements show prejudice affecting impartiality and due process | No hostile ill will or favoritism shown; presumption of impartiality not overcome; claim rejected |
| Manifest weight of the evidence for rape convictions | Victim testimony, SANE exam (bruising, torn hymen, abrasion), corroborating witness accounts, and Y‑STR DNA linking a male profile that could include Lawrence support convictions | Testimony contained inconsistencies and the State’s narrative is implausible; convictions rest largely on inconsistent testimony | Convictions not against the manifest weight — jury credibility determinations upheld; no miscarriage of justice |
| Sentencing: consecutive nine‑year terms based on lack of remorse | Trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, including lack of genuine remorse as a recidivism indicator, and sentenced within statutory range | It was improper to penalize Lawrence’s expression (or lack) of remorse while he maintained innocence and had a pending appeal | Sentence affirmed: record supports sentencing findings; considering lack of remorse was permissible and sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 286 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural rule governing counsel filing a brief when no meritorious issues are found)
- In re Disqualification of Corts, 47 Ohio St.3d 601 (1988) (a judge’s opinions of law, even if erroneous, are not alone evidence of bias)
- State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463 (1956) (definition of judicial bias and disqualification principles)
- State v. Dean, 127 Ohio St.3d 140 (2010) (discussing requirements to show judicial bias or prejudice)
- DeHass v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (appellate deference to jury on witness credibility)
- State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61 (1964) (jury authority to accept or reject witness testimony)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)