State v. Power, 2013 Ohio 4254

Background

Defendant Paul Power appeals a Columbiana County Common Pleas Court sentencing for two counts of gross sexual imposition, after pleading to two counts as part of a reduced plea from rape of a child; offenses involved sexual contact with the defendant's granddaughter aged about four or five; court sentenced to consecutive four-year terms and ordered tier II sex offender registration for 25 years; the trial court’s sentencing notes emphasized public protection, the seriousness of the conduct, and the great harm to the victim; Power argues sentencing bias and improper use of consecutive terms without proper judicial findings.
The State had urged consecutive sentences based on the relationship, trust, and position of authority Power held over his granddaughter and the resulting harm; the victim’s mother read a statement describing ongoing emotional impact and requested life with parole after 20 years; Power apologized and accepted responsibility, claiming he did not want the granddaughter to testify further; the court stated its reasoning on the record, including that the harm was great and unusual and a single term would be insufficient; the sentencing entry referenced R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12 and the need to reflect seriousness and protect the public.
Power did not raise bias at sentencing nor file an affidavit of disqualification; the court’s remarks to the victim’s mother and its characterization of the act as despicable were found not to demonstrate bias or deny due process; under Ohio law, appellate review of a judge’s bias at sentencing is limited and depends on the presence of a fixed anticipatory judgment, which was not shown here; the court’s findings for consecutive sentences were upheld as satisfying statutory requirements even without exact wording, and the record showed purpose and principled justification for the consecutive terms.
The court explicitly stated that consecutive terms were necessary to punish and protect the public, were not disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct, and reflected the great harm to the victim; the sentencing entry and statements satisfied the requirements of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b); the judge did not need to recite exact statutory language, so long as the findings were clear from the record.
The result was to affirm Power’s consecutive four-year sentences and the 25-year tier II sex offender registration; the court also noted that Power’s sentences were not maximum and that the state’s recommendation could be rejected without implying bias.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing judge exhibited bias requiring disqualification	Power asserts bias from courtroom conduct toward the victim’s mother and himself.	Power contends the judge’s remarks show prejudice and impaired impartiality.	No reversible bias; remarks were not evidence of a fixed anticipatory judgment and do not compel disqualification.
Whether the court properly imposed consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State argues findings for consecutiveness were satisfied by record; findings need not be verbatim statutory language.	Power contends the court failed to make proper judicial findings and provide reasons.	Consecutive sentences upheld; findings were present in the sentencing hearing and entry, with conceptually equivalent reasoning.

Key Cases Cited

Ruehlman, 74 Ohio St.3d 1229 (1991) (affidavit of disqualification and judge bias exception in sentencing context)
Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440 (1978) (appellate court lack of authority to order disqualification; bias issues reserved for Supreme Court)
State v. Wade, 53 Ohio St.2d 182 (1978) (bias and due process considerations in trial contexts; limits on appellate review)
State v. Drummond, 2006-Ohio-7078 (2006) (exception for bias review when assessing juror prejudice (not applicable here))
State v. Kelly, 2009-Ohio-1035 (2009) (court may depart from recommendations; bias not shown by rejection of state’s recommendation)