State v. Percy
2021 Ohio 1876
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Percy pleaded guilty to two counts of rape, one count of gross sexual imposition, and one count of child endangering based on repeated assaults of a minor.
- Trial court sentenced Percy to 11 years on each rape count to be served consecutively to each other, concurrent with an 8‑year child endangering term and a 5‑year gross sexual imposition term, for an aggregate 22‑year sentence.
- The court also imposed $250 in court costs on each conviction (total $1,000), classified Percy as a Tier III sex offender, imposed five years of mandatory postrelease control, and ordered forfeiture of a police badge and work ID.
- Percy appealed, challenging (1) the legality of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), (2) imposition of $1,000 in fines given his indigence, and (3) the forfeiture order as procedurally deficient and unrelated to the crimes.
- The court affirmed convictions and fines, vacated the forfeiture order for lack of required notice/specification, and remanded to allow the trial court to make the missing consecutive‑sentence statutory finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when imposing consecutive sentences | State: court made necessary findings (protect public, punish, not disproportionate) supporting consecutive terms | Percy: court omitted the statutory alternative finding under (C)(4)(b) that offenses were part of a course of conduct and caused unusually great harm | Court: reversed on this point — trial court failed to make the required (C)(4)(b) finding; remand to address it |
| Whether the $1,000 in fines was improper because Percy is indigent | State: fines are authorized; court considered ability to pay (called fines "minimal" and noted time in prison to work them off) | Percy: unable to pay; indigent so fines improper without adequate consideration | Court: affirmed fines — trial court considered present/future ability to pay and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether forfeiture of badge and ID was proper without a forfeiture specification or prompt notice | State: sought forfeiture after plea and argues later notice/remedy possible under statute and Crim.R.7(E) | Percy: no forfeiture specification in indictment and no prompt bill of particulars/notice — therefore forfeiture procedurally invalid | Court: vacated forfeiture — state failed to include a forfeiture specification and did not give the prompt notice required by R.C. 2981.04(A)(2) and Crim.R.7(E) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Bonnell, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must make and incorporate required consecutive‑sentence findings on the record)
- State v. Edmonson, 715 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1999) (trial court must note it considered statutory sentencing criteria)
- State v. Morris, 73 N.E.3d 1010 (Ohio 2016) (failure to make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings renders consecutive sentence contrary to law)
- State v. Nitsche, 66 N.E.3d 135 (Ohio 2016) (possibility of working in prison is a permissible factor when considering ability to pay fines)
- United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2017) (purpose of Crim.R. 7 bills of particulars: inform defendant and minimize trial surprise)