2022 Ohio 4052
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Craig Lefkowitz, a former Southington Local Schools teacher and athletic director, was indicted on multiple counts for sexually abusing a minor student; he pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual battery and one count of compelling prostitution.
- Allegations included supplying alcohol to underage students, cultivating a manipulative "big brother" relationship with the victim, showing pornography, photographing the minor nude, taking the victim on a road trip where they drank and had sex, paying the victim, and attempting to bribe the victim during investigation.
- The victim suffered serious psychological harm, substance abuse issues, and marital breakdown as a result of the abuse.
- At sentencing the court designated Lefkowitz a Tier III sex offender and imposed concurrent 60-month terms on the sexual-battery counts plus a consecutive 36-month term on the compelling-prostitution count, for an aggregate 96-month sentence.
- The trial court made findings at the hearing and in its entry that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public, were not disproportionate, and that a single term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct; the court also discussed the severity of victim harm and the defendant’s exploitation of his position of trust.
- Lefkowitz appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) the court failed to make the statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to support consecutive sentences; and (2) the court erred by imposing maximum sentences. Review was for plain error because no objection was made at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lefkowitz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences | The court made the required findings at the sentencing hearing and incorporated them in the entry; the record supports those findings and no "talismanic" language is required | The court did not make the statutory findings (or make alternative findings listed in the statute) to justify consecutive terms | Affirmed — court made the required findings at hearing and in the entry; record contains evidence (victim harm, multiple offenses, position of trust) supporting those findings |
| Whether imposition of maximum sentences was erroneous | Trial court has discretion to impose sentences within the statutory range and is not required to state findings to impose maximum terms; here the court’s remarks also show support for the sentence | Lefkowitz argued he was effectively a first-time offender and the passage of time without reoffending made maximum terms unwarranted | Affirmed — sentence within statutory range; court not required to state reasons for maximum; record supports sentence and no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and incorporate them into the entry but need not state reasons supporting those findings)
- State v. Venes, 992 N.E.2d 453 (2013) (support for consecutive-sentence findings may appear anywhere in the record, not only at the instant of imposition)
- State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470 (2006) (trial courts have discretion to impose sentences within statutory ranges and are not required to make certain findings to impose maximum sentences)
- State v. Noling, 781 N.E.2d 88 (2002) (describing plain-error standard applicable to unpreserved sentencing objections)
- State v. Waxler, 69 N.E.3d 1132 (2016) (discusses plain-error framework in sentencing review)