State v. Trevino
2014 Ohio 3363
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Pablo Trevino was indicted on six counts arising from sexual abuse of his two minor stepdaughters.
- Counts 1, 2, 4, and 6 involved rape charges; Counts 3 and 5 involved disseminating material harmful to juveniles and gross sexual imposition.
- Appellant pled guilty to four reduced counts of sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(5)) on April 25, 2013; the other two charges were dismissed.
- On June 28, 2013, Trevino received consecutive five-year terms on each of the four counts, totaling 20 years, and was classified as a Tier III sex offender.
- The trial court’s sentencing decision is challenged on whether counts should merge and whether consecutive sentences complied with statutory requirements.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the counts did not merge and the consecutive sentences complied with the statutory framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Counts 1 and 2 merge for sentencing? | Trevino argues allied-offense merger applies to rape counts. | Treviño contends separate acts/animus warrant multiple convictions. | Counts did not merge; separate acts/animus supported consecutive sentences. |
| Did the trial court properly justify consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)? | Consecutive sentences required justification under statute. | The court complied with statutory findings and entered proper findings in the sentencing entry. | Yes; the court’s findings satisfied R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and the sentence was not contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (distinct offenses with separate animus do not merge)
- State v. Davic, 2012-Ohio-952 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-555) (multiple rapes may not merge when separate intents and harms exist)
- State v. Tammerine, 2014-Ohio-425 (6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1081) (standard of review for felony sentencing under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) ( Kalish clarifies review for sentences 'clearly and convincingly contrary to law')
- State v. Banks, 2014-Ohio-1000 (6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1095) (consecutive-sentencing findings; standard of review under 2953.08)
- State v. Jude, 2014-Ohio-2437 (6th Dist. Wood No. WD-13-055) (necessity of supported findings in sentencing entry)
- State v. Edwards, 2010-Ohio-2582 (6th Dist. Lucas No. L-08-1408) (waiver/forfeiture of allied-offense merger argument on appeal)