State v. Summers
2014 Ohio 2441
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Christopher Summers, a 35-year-old teacher/coach, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual battery in Darke County and to eight counts in Mercer County for sexual conduct with an underage student that occurred over more than two years.
- Most conduct occurred in Mercer County; the Darke County charge arose from a hotel encounter in Greenville.
- Mercer County sentence: eight counts, 30 months each, served consecutively for an aggregate 20 years; Darke County sentence: one year, ordered to run consecutively to the Mercer sentence.
- At sentencing the court referenced an Ohio Risk Assessment indicating low risk to reoffend but expressed concern about potential recurrence during periods of poor judgment.
- The trial court found the Darke County offense was part of a course of conduct, characterized the offense as more serious given the victim’s age and Summers’s position of authority, and made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings when imposing consecutive service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lawfully imposed consecutive sentence under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State: Court made required findings and may consider course of conduct and need to protect public | Summers: Court failed to make specific findings tied to sentencing purposes; consecutive sentence was an abuse of discretion | Court: Affirmed. Record supports R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; consecutive sentence not contrary to law or an abuse of discretion |
| Whether court improperly relied on Summers’s position of authority as an aggravating factor under R.C. 2929.12(B) | State: Position of authority relevant to seriousness and course of conduct analysis | Summers: Position of authority is an element of the offense and should not be given weight to make offense "more serious" | Court: Acknowledged position of authority is an element and not entitled to significant weight, but overall sentencing consideration (including course of conduct) was reasonable |
| Whether religious or anecdotal remarks by the judge invalidated the sentence | State: Remarks were anecdotal and not the basis for sentence | Summers: Judge's religious comments suggested improper basis for sentence | Court: Remarks described as anecdotal and unrelated to sentence; no due process violation shown |
| Whether Summers’s sentence was inconsistent with sentences for similar offenders | State: Consistency requirement satisfied by individualized sentencing and consideration of full record | Summers: Sentence disproportionate compared to other cited cases | Court: Defendant failed to present adequate comparative records; consistency claim not shown; darke one-year sentence was lawful (Mercer sentence not before this court) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Short, 952 N.E.2d 1121 (Ohio 2011) (course-of-conduct may be shown by factual links such as time, location, motivation)
- State v. Sapp, 822 N.E.2d 1239 (Ohio 2004) (offenses linked by common scheme or psychological thread can constitute a single course of conduct)
- State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 2000) (judge’s personal or religious beliefs may violate due process when they explicitly form the basis for sentence)
- State v. Wiles, 571 N.E.2d 97 (Ohio 1991) (sentencing court may consider dismissed charges and acquitted conduct when imposing sentence)
- State v. Bowser, 926 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (trial court may rely on facts underlying dismissed charges in sentencing)
- United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728 (4th Cir. 1991) (federal case addressing impermissible intrusion of personal religious principles into sentencing)