State v. Wasil, 2018 Ohio 4463

Thomas Wasil (appellant) was charged with rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)) and gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)) after his granddaughter A.R., then 10, reported sexual abuse during a sleepover.
At trial A.R., age 11 when testifying, described multiple acts: placing her hand on his genitals, digital vaginal insertion two to three times, and oral contact.
The jury acquitted Wasil of rape but convicted him of gross sexual imposition; the trial court sentenced him to the statutory maximum of five years imprisonment.
Wasil appealed, arguing (1) the gross sexual imposition conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because acquittal on rape but conviction on GSI was inconsistent, and (2) the court abused discretion by imposing the maximum sentence.
The appellate record did not include the presentence investigation report; Wasil did not move to supplement the record on appeal.

Issue	Wasil's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether GSI conviction was against manifest weight where jury acquitted on rape but convicted on GSI	Verdicts are inconsistent; jury could not credit parts of A.R.’s testimony while rejecting others	Inconsistent verdicts are permissible; evidence showed distinct acts supporting GSI conviction	Affirmed: not against manifest weight; jury could credit some testimony and discredit other parts; acts were distinct
Whether trial court abused discretion by imposing maximum (5-year) sentence	Maximum sentence unsupported: limited record, minimal prior record, no serious physical harm, low recidivism risk	Sentence within statutory range; appellate record lacks PSI so must presume regularity	Affirmed: no reversible error; sentence within discretion and record not supplemented with PSI

State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (standard for manifest-weight review)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983) (reversal on manifest-weight limited to exceptional cases)
State v. Foust, 105 Ohio St.3d 137 (2004) (when rape and GSI are separate acts they are not allied offenses)
State v. Hicks, 43 Ohio St.3d 72 (1989) (inconsistent verdicts on separate counts do not require reversal)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent multi-count verdicts permissible)
State v. Adams, 53 Ohio St.2d 223 (1978) (verdicts on separate counts are not interdependent)
State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (trial court discretion in sentencing within statutory range)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellate presumption of regularity when record is incomplete)