State v. GatesState v. Gates
Russell V. Leffler, for appellant.
* * * * *
JENSEN, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Michael Gates, appeals the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to 16 years in prison aftеr he pleaded guilty to one count of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition. Finding no error, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On December 29, 2016, appellant was indicted on one count of rape in violation of
{¶ 3} Appellant entered a plea of not guilty, and the matter proceeded through discovery. On March 28, 2017, appellant, through appointed counsel, filed a motion to suppress “any and all statements made by [appellant] to law enforcement that the State may intend to use аt trial.” The basis for the motion to suppress was the assertion that appellant was not properly advised of his Miranda rights prior to police questioning. On June 21, 2017, the trial court denied appellant‘s motion to suppress, finding that аppellant‘s confessions were voluntarily given while appellant was not under arrest.
{¶ 4} Two months later, appellant appeared before the trial court and entered a consent to be tried on a bill оf information. The bill of information contained one count of rape in violation of
{¶ 5} At the conclusion of the hearing on the bill of particulars, the court referred appellant to the adult probation department for the preparation of a presentence investigation report and set the matter for sentencing. The sentencing hearing was held on September 26, 2017. At sentencing, the trial court ordered appellant to serve prison terms of 11 years for rape and 5 years for gross sexual imposition, to bе served consecutively, for a total prison sentence of 16 years.
{¶ 6} On October 11, 2017, appellant filed his timely notice of appeal.
B. Assignments of Error
{¶ 7} On appeal, appellant presents the following assignments of the еrror for our review:
I. The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant on both the rape and GSI offenses without examining the underlying facts to determine whether they were allied offenses of similar import pursuant to
O.R.C. 2941.25 .
II. Trial counsel was incompetent by not attempting to exclude the defendant‘s statements as evidence since there was no other proof of corpus delecti of the crimes or to assert that the crimes were allied offenses of similar import.
II. Analysis
A. Allied Offenses of Similar Import
{¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in separately sentencing appellant for rape and gross sexual imposition without first determining whether those offensеs were allied offenses of similar import.
{¶ 9} Relevant to appellant‘s allied offenses argument,
(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one.
(B) Where the defendant‘s conduct constitutes two or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of the same оr similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.
{¶ 11} Appellant failed to raise his allied offenses argument in the trial court below. Therefore, we review appellant‘s argument under a plain error standard of review. State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 3. The court in Rogers stated that, under the plain error standard, it is the accused‘s burden “to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the сonvictions are for allied offenses of similar import committed with the same conduct and without a separate animus,” and, “absent that showing, the accused cannot demonstrate that the trial court committed plain error by failing to inquire whether the convictions merge for purposes of sentencing.” Id.
{¶ 13} Here, the record of the factual underpinnings that gave rise to appellant‘s convictions for rape and gross sexual imposition is not well developed. Indeed, the record at the plea heаring reveals that the trial court did not seek a statement from the state as to the factual basis that would support appellant‘s plea. However, the bill of particulars to which appellant consented sрecifies with regard to the rape count that appellant “forced fellatio on another person separate from the criminal act in Count 2.” Moreover, the bill of particulars states that appеllant “touched the penis of the other person in an act of masturbation separate from the fellatio in Count 1.” Thus, the bill of particulars clearly indicates that the charges stem from two acts that were committed separately.
{¶ 14} Because these offenses were committed separately, they are not allied offenses of similar import. See State v. Hay, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-2000-24, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5951, *7-8 (Dec. 19, 2000) (“The charge of gross sexual imposition was prеmised upon the alleged masturbation of [the child‘s] penis. This is separate and
B. Corpus Delecti
{¶ 15} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to filе a motion in limine, seeking to have his confessions excluded pursuant to the corpus delecti rule.
{¶ 16} In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must satisfy the two-prong test develоped in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). That is, appellant must show that counsel‘s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel‘s error, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Id. at 687-688, 694.
{¶ 17} The corpus delecti rule was explained by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Maranda, 94 Ohio St. 364, 114 N.E. 1038 (1916). In Maranda, the court stated:
By the ‘corpus delicti’ of a crime is meant the body or substance of the crime, included in which are usually two elеments: (1) the act; (2) the criminal agency of the act.
It has long been established as a general rule in Ohio that there must be some evidence of a confession, tending to establish the corpus delicti, before such confession is admissible. The quantum or weight of such outside or extraneous evidence is not of itself to be equal to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nor even enough to make it a prima facie case. Id. at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus.
{¶ 18} In ordеr to satisfy the corpus delecti rule, the prosecution must introduce evidence tending to prove the fact that a crime was committed, but that evidence need not be direct; instead, circumstantial evidencе may be relied upon to show corpus delicti. Id. at 371. Indeed, the burden upon the state to provide evidence of the corpus delecti is minimal. State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St. 2d 31, 36, 358 N.E.2d 1051 (1976).
{¶ 19} Here, the record contains evidence to satisfy the corpus delеcti rule. Specifically, there is evidence that appellant communicated with a woman in Texas concerning the procurement of child pornography. During these chat room communications, appellant revealed that he had previously committed sexual offenses against children, and threatened to do so again if he was not provided with additional child pornography. While this evidence is circumstantial, it is sufficient to satisfy the prosecution‘s minimal burden relative to the corpus delecti rule. Consequently, a motion in limine challenging the admissibility of the confession under the corpus delecti rule
{¶ 20} Accordingly, appellant‘s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 21} In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs of this appeаl are assessed to appellant pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
JUDGE
James D. Jensen, J. CONCUR.
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.