2008 Ohio 2893 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2008
{¶ 3} Noel was indicted on ten counts of rape, four counts of corrupting another with drugs, two counts of gross sexual imposition, one count of possession of cocaine, one count of possession of marijuana, and three counts of possession of criminal tools. He pled guilty to four counts, as described above, and the other seventeen counts were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. His aggregate sentence was a term of life plus ten years.
{¶ 4} Noel raises two assignments of error on appeal.
{¶ 6} Noel argues that his sentence may have been "disproportionate and unreasonable" and that the counts of gross sexual imposition and rape "may have been allied offenses of similar import." His argument suggests that sentencing considerations are unclear following the supreme court's decision in State v. Foster,
{¶ 7} In 2006, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that parts of Ohio's felony sentencing scheme were unconstitutional because they "require[d] judicial finding of facts not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant." Foster at ¶ 83. The supreme court severed the provisions that it found to be unconstitutional, leaving trial courts with full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range without making findings or giving reasons for imposing maximum, non-minimum, or consecutive sentences. Id.; State v.Mathis,
{¶ 8} Foster did not expressly address R.C.
{¶ 9} After Foster, we may order the relief authorized by R.C.
{¶ 10} Noel suggests that the sentence imposed by the trial court may have been disproportionate or unreasonable under the circumstances presented, but he does not make any specific argument in this respect. His sentence is within the available range of sentences under R.C.
{¶ 11} Noel also states, without elaboration, that the rape and gross sexual imposition offenses to which he pled guilty might have been allied offenses of similar import. This argument is without merit because Noel was convicted of raping his son, whereas the gross sexual imposition involved his daugther. Offenses involving two different victims cannot be allied offenses of similar import. State v. Jones
(1985),
{¶ 12} The first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 14} Noel asserts that the trial court failed to adequately discuss "the particular evidence and factors that it relied upon" in determining that he was a sexual predator.
{¶ 15} A "sexual predator" is a person who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to committing a sexually oriented offense and who is likely to engage in one or more sexually oriented offenses in the future. R.C.
{¶ 16} The second assignment of error is overruled.
BROGAN, J. and DONOVAN, J., concur
Copies mailed to:
*6Scott D. Schockling
Cathy J. Weithman
*1Hon. Roger B. Wilson