STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, - vs - CHRISTOPHER L. LITTLETON, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. CA2016-03-060
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY
10/31/2016
[Cite as State v. Littleton, 2016-Ohio-7544.]
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2015-07-1169
Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant
HENDRICKSON, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant, Christopher L. Littleton, appeals from the sentence he received in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas after he pled guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition of a minor. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm his sentence.
{2} On August 5, 2015, appellant was indicted on two counts of rape of a child younger than ten years old in violation of
{3} On January 22, 2016, appellant pled guilty to two counts of gross sexual imрosition in violation of
{4} Prior to the sentencing hearing, appellant submitted a sentencing memorandum in which he conceded that he could not rebut the presumption of a prison term, but asserted that “neither consecutive nor maximum sentences [are] necessary tо achieve the purposes of sentencing in this case.” Appellant argued his conduct was not more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense of gross sexual imposition, he did not cause physical harm to the victim, the victim “seems to have not suffered any mentаl harm as a consequence of [his] acts,” he was remorseful for his actions, and he did not pose a danger of reoffending.
{5} At the March 10, 2016 sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated it had reviewed appellant‘s sentencing memorandum, letters written to it by appellant and the victim‘s mother, grandparents, and sister, as well as the PSI report. The court also had before it a statement from the victim‘s mother. The victim‘s mother informed the court that her daughter suffers from autism spectrum disorder, speech apraxia, and sensory processing disorder. Mother discussed the difficulties the victim has faced as a result of appellant‘s actions, noting that the victim‘s “life was difficult enough before adding the mental, emotional, and physical trauma of being raped at five years old.” Mother discussed the fact that the victim has been “in emotionаl therapy for over a year and is still not at a point where she can
{6} Appellant timely appealed from his sentence, raising the following as his sole assignment of error:
{7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF [APPELLANT] WHEN IT SENTENCED HIM TO CONSECUTIVE MAXIMUM TERMS OF 60 MONTHS IN THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS.
{8} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred by sentencing him to the maximum term of 60 months in prison for each count of gross sexual imposition and by running the sentences consecutively. Appellant contends a 120-month sentence “goes against the purposes and principles of felony sentencing” and that concurrent terms would have “adequately protectеd the public while punishing [him] for his actions.”
{9} We review the imposed sentence under the standard of review set forth in
{10} Moreover, even in those cases where the sentence imposed does not require any of the statutory findings specifically addressed within
{11}
{12} The purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime
{13} After a thorough review of the record, we find no error in the trial court‘s decision to sentence appellant to the maximum 60-mоnth prison term on each count of gross sexual imposition. The record plainly reveals that appellant‘s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law as the trial court properly considered the principles and purposes of
The Court has considered the record, the charges, the defendant‘s Guilty Plea, and findings as set forth on the record and herein, oral statements, any victim impact statement and pre-sentence report, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing under Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.11, and has
balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors of Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.12 and whether or not community control is appropriate pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.13, and finds that the defendant is not amendable to an available community control sanction.
{14} The record supports the trial court‘s sentencing decision. Although appellant expressed remorse for his actions and he did not have a criminal history for these types of offenses, the record supports the trial court‘s determination that 60-month prison terms were commensurate with the seriousness of the appellant‘s conduct, necessary to punish appellant, and necessary to protect the public from future crime by appellant. Appellant used his “position of trust” in facilitating his offenses. For more than a year, appellant repeatedly sexually assаulted the five-year-old victim, with knowledge that victim “already suffered from problems, [and] had issues” due to her autism, speech apraxia, and sensory processing disorder. Given the foregoing considerations, we find that the trial court‘s imposition of 60-month prison terms on each count of gross sexual imposition was not clearly and convincing contrary to law or unsupported by the record.
{15} We further find that the trial court‘s decision to run appellant‘s sentences consecutively was not contrary to law and is supported by the record. Pursuant to
- The offender committed one or more of the multiplе offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section
2929.16 ,2929.17 , or2929.18 of the Revised Code , or was under post-release control for a prior offense.
At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiрle offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct. - The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{16} “In order to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by
{17} Here, the record reflects the trial court made the findings required by
THE COURT: [W]hat transpired and what the evidence would have been if this case had went to trial is this defendant is digitally penetrating this little girl[.]
* * *
And apparently on a repeated basis. And the little girl already suffered from problems, had issues. And this Defendant was in this household in a position of trust. He‘s a parent figure. He‘s in a relationship with the child‘s mother.
* * *
The Court will find the Defendant is not amenаble to available community control sanctions. The court will sentence the Defendant on both Counts I and II to 60 months in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Those sentences will run consecutive to one another.
The Court will find that having reviewed the PSI, considered the information, and considered the information that was brought to the Court‘s attention through all of the proceedings today, and considering the victim impact statements, that the Defendant is not amenable to community control, that the presumption has not been rebutted, аnd that the presumption in favor of concurrent terms has not been rebutted [sic], and that consecutive sentences are necessary to adequately protect the public and to punish this Defendant and are not disproportionate, and will find that the harm is so great or unusual that a single term does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the Defendant‘s conduct.
To lay down next to a five-year old girl in a step-dad capacity and to digitally repeatedly penetrate this little girl, the Court finds that this is the type of conduct that warrants cоnsecutive sentences, sir.
The trial court later memorialized these findings within its sentencing entry.
{18} From the trial court‘s statements at the sentencing hearing and the language used in the sentencing entry, it is clear that the trial court complied with the dictates of
{19} Accordingly, as the trial court‘s imposition of two consecutive 60-month prison terms was not contrary to law, we overrule appellant‘s sole assignment of error.
{20} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.