State v. Mullins
2013 Ohio 4301
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Mullins was indicted on rape and gross sexual imposition for a 2003–2004 incident involving his nephew under age 13.
- Mullins pled guilty to gross sexual imposition; the rape count was nolle prossed.
- Sentencing occurred October 5, 2012: Mullins received the maximum five-year term for gross sexual imposition, was classified as a Tier II sex offender, and faced five years of mandatory post-release control.
- Mullins argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence and by not properly applying sentencing statutes.
- The court discusses the evolution of Ohio felony-sentencing law (Foster, Kalish, Hodge, HB 86) and concludes post-HB 86 review uses the clear-and-convincing standard under R.C. 2953.08(G), with the trial court having discretion within the statutory range while considering sentencing factors.
- The court affirms Mullins’ sentence and notes Mullins’ indigency, waiving costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Mullins’ maximum sentence proper under current law? | Mullins asserts misapplication of sentencing law. | State contends court properly exercised discretion within the statutory range. | Sentence affirmed; no clear-and-convincing error found. |
| Did the court properly apply R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 after HB 86? | Court failed to consider statutory sentencing purposes and factors. | Court considered purposes and factors; silent record suffices absent contrary showing. | Review shows proper consideration; no reversal. |
| Was reliance on the dismissed rape count appropriate at sentencing? | Dismissed count improperly influenced the sentence. | Dismissed or driven by plea terms; may be considered. | Appropriate to consider; no error in sentencing.”},{ |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (severed unconstitutional sentencing-finding requirements; courts have discretion within range)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step review for felony sentences; later clarified under HB86 framework)
- State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-150 (Ohio 2013) (post-HB86 approach; discretion to satisfy sentencing purposes under 2929.11–12)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006-Ohio-855) (requires consideration of seriousness and recidivism factors in 2929.12)