State v. Webb
2019 Ohio 4195
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- June 18, 2016 at Blue Rock State Park: witnesses saw Dana Webb repeatedly pull a young girl onto his lap and observed him place the child’s hand over his shorts and rub himself; the child was identified as nine years old (sentencing record alternatively describes the child as ten).
- Indictment charged Webb with gross sexual imposition (third-degree felony) and kidnapping with a sexual-motivation specification (first-degree felony).
- August 10, 2018: Webb withdrew a not-guilty plea and pled guilty to gross sexual imposition (Count I) and an amended abduction charge (Count II), both third-degree felonies; the court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI).
- September 26, 2018: Court found Webb a Tier II sex offender, merged the counts for sentencing, elected to sentence on Count I, and imposed the mandatory maximum prison term of 60 months plus five years of post-release control.
- At sentencing the court relied on the PSI, Webb’s extensive criminal history, active warrants, and perceived lack of remorse in imposing the 60-month term.
- Webb appealed, arguing the trial court unlawfully imposed the maximum sentence in violation of his due-process and constitutional rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the maximum 60-month sentence is unlawful/contrary to law | State: sentence lawful; within statutory range; court considered statutory factors (PSI, record) and had discretion | Webb: imposition of maximum violates due process and constitutional protections; court erred in sentencing to the maximum | Affirmed: sentence is within statutory range and not contrary to law; court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors via the record and PSI; no requirement to state detailed reasons on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (sets standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court need not state detailed reasons on the record to impose a maximum sentence if record supports consideration of statutory factors)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (defines the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- State v. Polick, 101 Ohio App.3d 428 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (no requirement that trial court expressly state on the record that it considered R.C. 2929.12 factors)