2013 Ohio 4607
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- State appeals a Franklin County judgment sentencing North after a guilty plea to two counts of gross sexual imposition against a victim under 13.
- North entered an Alford plea; the court stated the plea to preserve his claim that he wasn’t subject to a mandatory term.
- The state sought a mandatory sentence under R.C. 2907.05(C)(2)(a) based on corroborating evidence besides the victim’s testimony.
- The trial court ruled the corroborating-evidence provision unconstitutional and did not impose mandatory terms.
- The parties stipulated that a detective would testify to corroborating evidence (North’s confession and an audio recording).
- Appellant argues the statute is constitutional and applicable; the court ultimately holds it applies and that corroborating evidence suffices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2907.05(C)(2)(a) requires a mandatory sentence. | State contends corroborating evidence triggers mandatory term. | North argues the statute is unconstitutional and/or requires victim-testimony predicate. | Corroborating evidence suffices to impose mandatory term; statute applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bevly, 2013-Ohio-1352 (10th Dist. 2013) (addressed corroboration and Alleyne-related issues in Ohio)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Supreme Court 2013) (mandatory minimums must be jury-determined)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court 2000) (fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be jury-found)
- State v. Economo, 76 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio Supreme Court 1996) (corroboration standard for conviction need not be independent)
- Alleyne v. United States (cited for principle), 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Supreme Court 2013) (distinguishes between mandatory-minimum and discretionary facts)