State v. Wright
2020 Ohio 5195
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Benjamin J. Wright, a foster parent, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(5) for sexual conduct with a foster child allegedly occurring May 2017–Jan 2018.
- Prosecutor presented facts that Wright located and urgently sought placement of the victim (whose sexual orientation was listed on an adoption web page) and assaults began within a month.
- PSI and letters detailed Wright’s history as a foster parent and community involvement; sentencing hearing included victim and caseworker statements.
- Trial court found the relationship facilitated the offense (R.C. 2929.12(B)(6)) and that Wright was motivated by prejudice based on sexual orientation (R.C. 2929.12(B)(8)).
- Court sentenced Wright to 36 months imprisonment (within the 12–60 month statutory range), five years post-release control, and Tier III sex-offender registration.
- Wright appealed, arguing (1) the court improperly used an element of the offense to elevate seriousness and (2) the 36‑month term was not supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly used an element of the offense to elevate seriousness under R.C. 2929.12(B) | State: The facts showed more than mere parental status — Wright sought out the victim and used the parental role to facilitate the offense, supporting the seriousness finding. | Wright: The court relied on an element of the offense (being in loco parentis), so it improperly elevated seriousness by double-counting the same fact. | Affirmed: Court held the record showed premeditation and exploitation beyond the statutory parental element, so R.C. 2929.12(B)(6) finding was supported. |
| Whether the 36‑month sentence is clearly and convincingly not supported by the record / contrary to law | State: Sentence is within statutory range and the court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 (as indicated in the journal entry); facts supported (B)(6) and (B)(8) findings. | Wright: The sentence is excessive and not supported by the record; (B)(8) prejudice finding unsupported. | Affirmed: Sentence is within statutory range; court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 in the entry and factual findings supported the term; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (Ohio 1954) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- State v. Long, 138 Ohio St.3d 478, 8 N.E.3d 890 (Ohio 2014) (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 sentencing guidance)
- State v. Day, 149 N.E.3d 122 (Ohio App. 2019) (discussion of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 as general sentencing guidance)