State v. Silknitter
2017 Ohio 327
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant William M. Silknitter was indicted on numerous sexual-offense counts alleging abuse of his stepdaughter from ages 7–19; parties reached a plea: guilty to six counts of sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(5), (B)), other counts dismissed.
- Sentencing and SORA/Tier III classification occurred March 3, 2016; trial court imposed six consecutive 48‑month terms (total 288 months) and Tier III registration.
- Defendant appealed, raising seven assignments of error challenging the sentence (failure to consider statutory factors, reliance on dismissed conduct, consecutive sentences, proportionality/inconsistency), PSI handling, constitutionality of the incest statute, and S.B. 10/SORA classification.
- Record included a recorded police interview admitted at a suppression hearing; defendant did not provide the transcript on appeal.
- The trial court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the PSI (with corrections), the record (including the interview), victim impact, and other materials; it made and incorporated the statutory findings supporting consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court failed to consider R.C. 2929.12(E) factors at sentencing | State: trial court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and record supports that | Silknitter: trial court did not properly consider R.C. 2929.12(E) mitigating factors | Court: rejected — explicit on-record and entry statements show consideration; sentence within statutory range |
| Whether court impermissibly relied on dismissed/off-record conduct at sentencing | State: sentencing may consider evidence of other crimes or dismissed charges and the record (including interview) | Silknitter: trial court relied on conduct beyond his plea and demonstrated bias without corroboration | Court: rejected — trial court may consider dismissed/offense evidence and the recorded interview; absence of suppression transcript means appellate court presumes trial court findings valid |
| Whether consecutive sentences are unsupported/proportionate under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: trial court made and incorporated required findings; record supports necessity and proportionality given multiple incidents and offender danger | Silknitter: no adequate factual basis for consecutive-term proportionality; disputes reliance on deputy testimony | Court: rejected — findings are in the record and entry; even excluding deputy testimony the defendant’s admissions in the record support findings |
| Whether sentence is inconsistent/not proportional with similar offenders | State: sentencing consistency is achieved by proper application of statutory guidelines, not case-by-case comparisons | Silknitter: sentence disproportionate compared to other cases; trial court failed to exhaustively analyze statutory factors | Court: rejected — defendant waived detailed challenge by not objecting at trial; record shows consideration of statutory factors; case-comparison approach is improper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (clarifying R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) clear-and-convincing standard for appellate review of sentences)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (requirements for stating and incorporating consecutive-sentence findings)
- State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 (upholding constitutionality of R.C. 2907.03(A)(5) under rational-basis review)
- State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20 (other-crimes evidence may be considered at sentencing)
- Mathis v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (trial court must consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; language not required but consideration is required)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)