State v. GoinsState v. Goins
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Robert Goins, appeals his sentence. He raises two assignments of error for our review:
[1.] The trial court erred by sentencing the defendant-appellant to a term of imprisonment contrary to statute and where its findings were not supported by the record.
[2.] The trial court erred when it imposed a prison term where its findings under
R.C. 2929.12 were not supported by the record and where it failed to give careful and substantial deliberаtion to the relevant statutory considerations.
{¶2} Finding no merit to his appeal, we affirm.
Procedural History
{¶3} In late 2011, Goins was indicted on several counts of rape with sexually violent predator specifications and several counts of kidnapping with sexual motivation and sexually violent predator specifications. The charges arose out of allegations that Goins had sexual intercourse by force with his daughter when she was 14 years old and again when she was 17 years old. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
{¶4} In February 2012, Goins withdrew his former plea and pleaded guilty to two counts of rape with the sexually violent predator specifications deleted. All other charges were nolled.
{¶5} The trial court sentenced Goins to six years for the first count of rape and eight years for thе second count of rape, and ordered that they be served consecutive to
Standard of Review
{¶6} An appellate court must conduct a meaningful review of the trial court‘s sentencing dеcision. State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. No. 97579, 2012-Ohio-2508, ¶ 6, citing State v. Hites, 3d Dist. No. 6-11-07, 2012-Ohio-1892, ¶ 7. Specifically,
Consecutive Sentences
{¶7} In his first assignment of error, Goins maintains that the trial court failed to consider
{¶8} Goins first contends that the trial court incorrectly and explicitly stated that H.B. 86 did not apply to Goins even though he was sentenced after the effective date of the statute. Goins‘s argument is misplaced. The trial court was awаre that H.B. 86 applied, and correctly noted that because Goins committed the offenses before the statute went into effect, Goins was entitled to the benefit of the lower sentencing ranges under the old statute (because H.B. 86 increased the sentencing range for first degree felonies to a maximum of 11 years). Thus, we must determine if the trial court correctly applied H.B. 86 when sentencing Goins to consecutive sentences.
{¶9}
{¶10} In each step of this analysis, the statutory language directs that the trial court must “find” the relevant sentencing factors before imposing consecutive sentences.
{¶11} Notably, however, the General Assembly deleted
{¶12} Goins‘s counsel spoke to the court on his behalf, informing the court that Goins had no prior felony or misdemeanor record. Goins‘s counsel further explained to
{¶13} Goins spoke to the court after his counsel. He apologized to his daughter. Goins‘s sister spoke on his behalf, as well as Goins‘s daughter, the victim. Gоins‘s daughter explained that she was pregnant with her father‘s child, but said that she had forgiven her father and she did not want him to go to jail.
{¶14} The prosecutor informed the court that although Goins had a lot of support from his family, there were “two rapes.” The рrosecutor stated that when the victim was 14 years old, Goins “brutally raped her over a pool table.” The victim wrote what happened in a letter. Her mother found the letter and did not believe her. When Goins found out about the letter, he “chase[d] her around the * * * basement with a hammer,” threatening her. The second incident occurred when Goins took the victim to his
{¶15} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated that it considered the PSI, the court psychiatric clinic report, and letters from Goins‘s family. The court further indicated that it considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under
{¶16} The trial court stated that although Goins did not have a prior criminal record, it found “the seriousness” of the crime relevant, as well as “the events giving rise to the crime itself.” The trial court stated that it found sexual abuse of a family member to bе the “highest level” of abuse. The trial court indicated that although Goins‘s family had forgiven him, they do not “control [the] disposition of sentencing.” The trial court stated that it also had to consider “the interest of society,” and protect the public as wеll as the victim. Although the court said that it considered Goins‘s mental health factors, it stated that it had to also consider the fact that Goins threatened his daughter as well. The trial court found that “a prison sentence is necessary in order to protect the public and not demean the seriousness of the offense.”
{¶17} The court further found that the first incident was “not the most serious form of the offense, but certainly [was] high up there.” On that count, the court sentenced Goins to six years in prison. On the later incidеnt, the court sentenced Goins to eight years in prison. The court stated, “because these are two separate rapes, bridged by a gap in time, the court is going to impose those sentences consecutively, for a period of 14 yеars total incarceration.”
{¶18} After reviewing the transcript in its entirety, we conclude that the trial court held a lengthy hearing, after which it made thoughtful and extensive findings. It discussed the seriousness of Goins‘s crimes and the need to protect the public and punish Goins. The trial court further considered the emotional and physical harm to the victim, Goins‘s young daughter, as well as the emotional harm and high risk of sickle cell anemia to the unborn child. The trial court also found sexual abuse by a family member to be one of the highest forms of abuse and considered the brutality of Goins‘s actions during both incidents as well. Finally, the trial court further found that Goins‘s actions consisted of two separate rapes, bridged by a gap in time. Thus, we find that the trial court fully met the statutory requirеments of
{¶19} Goins‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
R.C. 2929.12
{¶20} In his second assignment of error, Goins maintains that the trial court failed to give substantial consideration to the factors under
{¶21}
{¶22} After a thorough review оf the sentencing hearing, which we recounted the majority of in the previous assignment of error, it is clear that the trial court properly considered each of the factors that Goins claims the trial court failed to consider.
{¶23} Goins‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶24} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered thаt appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleаs court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCURS;
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY