State v. Lopez-CruzState v. Lopez-Cruz
The Law Office of Wendy R. Calaway, Co., LPA, and Wendy R. Calaway, for appellant.
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Marcо Lopez-Cruz, appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to the maximum 10-year prison term available after he pled guilty to rape of a girl under the age of 13. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On October 20, 2021, the Butler County Grand Jury returned a seven-count
On or about February 16, 2005, through October 19, 2007, in Butler County, Ohio, Marco Lоpez-Cruz did engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender when the other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether оr not the offender knows the age of the other person, which constitutes the offense of RAPE, a First Degree Felony, in violation of
R.C. §2907.02(A)(1)(b) , and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.
The bill of particulars provided additional information that alleged this rape occurred in the hallway of a residence located in Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio.
{¶ 3} On June 30, 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. During this hearing, the trial court sentenced Lopez-Cruz to the maximum 10-year prison term available for the rape offense to which Lopez-Cruz had pled guilty, less 295 days of jаil-time credit. The trial court also classified Lopez-Cruz a sexual predator and notified Lopez-Cruz that he would be subjeсt to a mandatory five-year postrelease control term upon his release from prison. In issuing its sentencing decision, the trial court specifically stated that it had “considered the purposes and principles of sentencing” under
{¶ 4} Lopez-Cruz now appeals the trial court‘s decision sentencing him to thаt maximum 10-year prison term, raising the following single assignment of error for review.
{¶ 5} THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.
{¶ 7} The Ohio Supreme Court reached this decision upon finding nothing within
{¶ 8} In so holding, we note that the trial court‘s decision to sentence Lopez-Cruz to the maximum 10-year prison term available was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. This is because the trial court took into consideration all relevant statutory factors set forth in
{¶ 9} Lopez-Cruz also argues the trial court‘s decision to sentence him to the maximum possible 10-year prison term constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.1 It is well established, however, that “[a] sentence thаt falls within statutory limitations is not excessive and does not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.” State v. Lemmings, 12th Dist. Clintоn No. CA2021-01-001, 2021-Ohio-3285, ¶ 28. Cruel and unusual punishments are instead “those that are so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community.” State v. Bosman, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2001-05-101, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 85, *3-*4 (Jan. 14, 2002). A 10-year prison sentence for the rape of a child under the agе of 13 comes nowhere near what it would take to shock the moral consciousness of the community. See State v. Murrell, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24717, 2012-Ohio-2108, ¶ 33 (finding an indefinite sentence of 10 years to life imprisonment for rape of child under 13 years did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment).
{¶ 10} The rapе of a child is shocking, outrageous, abominable, and it has enduring effects on the child, thus necessitating a penalty equivalent to its enormity. State v. Accorinti,
{¶ 11} For the reasons outlined above, and finding no merit to either of the two arguments raised by Lopez-Cruz herein, Lopez-Cruz‘s single assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.
{¶ 12} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.