State v. Leopard
194 Ohio App. 3d 500
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Leopard, age 42, was convicted after a guilty plea to two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (both victims were 15).
- The charges stemmed from multiple instances of Leopard allegedly inserting a finger, engaging in vaginal intercourse, and performing cunnilingus on J.R. and B.M.
- Leopard operated a home that attracted neighborhood teens, provided alcohol, and created an environment condoning illegal activity.
- Two victims reported recordings of Leopard confessing to numerous sexual encounters with them.
- Leopard was indicted on six counts with a ten-or-more-years-older specification; pled guilty to two counts with that specification, one for each victim.
- The trial court sentenced Leopard to two consecutive four-year terms (total eight years) and five years of mandatory postrelease control as a Tier II offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive sentences proper | Leopard argues failure to make required findings after Foster Iceline. | Leopard asserts Ice revived need for findings; improper consecutive sentences. | No reversible error; findings not required; sentence within statutory range. |
| Proper consideration of sentencing principles | Leopard claims the court did not balance 2929.11/2929.12 as required. | Leopard asserts court failed to consider principles and factors. | Court considered principles and factors; judgment reflects balancing of 2929.11/2929.12. |
| Reasonableness of two consecutive four-year terms | Leopard challenges near-maximum, consecutive terms for first offender. | State contends reasons supported by multiple victims and pattern of conduct. | No abuse of discretion; consecutive four-year terms within range justified by conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (construction of abuse of discretion standard for sentences)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (statutory compliance in felony sentencing)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (constitutional severance and sentencing discretion after Ice)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010) (Ice does not revive 2929.14(E)(4) findings requirement)
- State v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (Supreme Court; busted requirements for consecutive sentences post-Foster)
- Cave v. State, 2010-Ohio-1237 (Ohio 2010) (journal-entry sufficiency to reflect statutory consideration)