State v. Lewis, 2013 Ohio 4593

Mark A. Lewis pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition and five kidnapping counts (with sexual motivation specifications); other counts were nolled. He was sentenced on the kidnapping counts.
The victim reported repeated sexual abuse from ages 12 to 17; police found thousands of photographs of children in Lewis’s possession. Lewis admitted the abuse occurred “often.”
At sentencing two men came forward alleging Lewis had abused them ~40 years earlier; Lewis admitted those prior acts in court. Defense counsel had argued for community control based on Lewis’s age and health.
Victims and multiple family members gave impact testimony describing severe, ongoing emotional harm; the court found Lewis held a position of trust and had not shown genuine remorse.
The trial court imposed consecutive five-year terms on each kidnapping count for a total of 25 years, made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, labeled Lewis a Tier III sex offender, and imposed postrelease control.
Lewis appealed, arguing the sentence improperly relied, even in part, on uncharged prior acts and thus violated due process; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by considering prior uncharged acts at sentencing	State: sentencing court may consider reliable information and victim impact testimony to assess seriousness and future danger	Lewis: court relied on uncharged prior acts (two prior victims) and thus violated due process; remand required if such acts were even a partial basis	Court: No error — Lewis expressly admitted the prior acts; sentencing courts may consider reliable evidence of prior criminal conduct, including uncharged acts, when assessing character, seriousness, and need for consecutive terms

State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998) (rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing; judge may consider reliable evidence)
State v. Burton, 52 Ohio St.2d 21 (1977) (sentencing court may consider arrests and other criminal activity to understand defendant’s character)
United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1965) (consideration of unproved criminal activity at sentencing does not offend presumption of innocence)
United States v. Metz, 470 F.2d 1140 (3d Cir. 1972) (sentencing court may consider defendant’s other criminal activity)
State v. Jeffers, 57 Ohio App.2d 107 (1978) (error where sentencing relied on matters underlying an acquittal)
State v. Patterson, 110 Ohio App.3d 264 (1996) (sentencing error where judge relied on surrounding facts beyond the plea-bargained offense)
State v. Longo, 4 Ohio App.3d 136 (1982) (trial court’s independent investigation of an uncharged crime and reliance on it at sentencing is egregious)