State v. Perrine
2013 Ohio 5738
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Perrine charged January 2011 with four counts of rape, two counts of kidnapping, two counts of gross sexual imposition; victim is his 11-year-old stepdaughter, S.K.; SVP specifications and sexual-motivation specs alleged.
- March 2011 bond-revocation motion: mother observed Perrine near victim’s daycare; alleged he waited for her passage to work and was seen near Harding Middle School.
- May 2012 second bond-revocation motion: Perrine allegedly violated bond terms by staying near victim and family and by not surrendering weapons; Perrine later submitted an affidavit claiming ownership of one gun.
- Plea agreement: Perrine pled guilty to abduction with sexual-motivation spec and two counts of gross sexual imposition; SVP specs nolled; offenses not allied; sentenced to 3 years for abduction and 5 years for each GSI, consecutive for 13 years total, with 5 years postrelease control and $15,000 fine.
- Appellate court affirmed; Perrine challenged the use of extrinsic evidence at sentencing and the imposition of maximum consecutive sentences; evidence and findings were reviewed under Ohio sentencing statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extrinsic evidence was improperly relied upon at sentencing. | Perrine argues DNA and victim-impact statements were improperly used. | State contends DNA and victim-impact statements are admissible for sentencing under RC 2929.19(B)(1) and RC 2947.051. | DNA and victim-impact statements permissible for sentencing. |
| Whether the trial court properly imposed maximum consecutive sentences with required RC 2929.14(C) findings. | Perrine contends missing RC 2929.14(C) findings. | State asserts findings were made, including the two required for consecutive sentences. | Findings satisfied; consecutive sentences upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Venes, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98682, 2013-Ohio-1891 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga, 2013) (standard for reversing/modifying consecutive-sentences determination under RC 2953.08)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000) (sets framework for sentencing purposes and consideration of factors under RC 2929.11–2929.12)
- State v. Samuels, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88610, 2007-Ohio-3904 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga, 2007) (discusses seriousness and recidivism factors under RC 2929.12)
- State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga, 2013) (reiteration of RC 2953.08 standards for consecutive-sentencing review)