State v. WatkinsState v. Watkins
OPINION
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Benjamin L. Watkins, appeals a judgment of the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas, finding him to be a sexual predator and sentencing him to an aggrеgate of sixteen years on two counts of rape. Watkins claims that the trial court‘s finding that he is a sexual predator was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Watkins also claims that the consecutive sentences the trial court imposed are not supported by the record and are contrary to law.
{¶ 2} Having reviewed the entire record, we find that the trial court did not err by finding that Watkins is a sexual predator. Additionally, the record supports the trial court‘s determination that Watkins’ sentences are to run consecutively. Accordingly, both of Watkins’ assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
{¶ 3} In June of 2003, Brittnay Schlueter was brought to the Joint Township District Memorial Hospital in Saint Mary‘s, Ohio by her father, Max Schlueter. At the time, she was nine years old. Max told the authorities that Brittnay had reported to him that her stepfаther, Watkins, had been sexually abusing her for the last two years. The incidents of sexual abuse involved oral sex and digital penetration of the vagina and anus.
{¶ 4} Accordingly, an investigation was commenced, and Watkins was interviewed by the police. Initially, Watkins denied that any kind of sexual contact had occurred between himself and Brittnay. However, Watkins eventually admitted that Brittnay‘s allegations were true.
{¶ 5} The matter was submitted to the grand jury, which returned a four count indictment consisting of One Count of gross sexual imposition in violation of
{¶ 6} At the sexual offender classification hearing, the trial court found that Watkins had committed a sеxually oriented crime and was likely to commit another sexually oriented crime in the future. Therefore, it found him to be a sexual predator. The trial court then held the sentencing hearing and sentenced Watkins tо nine years of incarceration on one of the counts of rape and seven years of incarceration on the other count of rape, to be served consecutively to one anоther. From this judgment Watkins appeals, presenting two assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error I
The evidence adduced at hearing on sexual predator classification by the state of Ohio failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Appellant is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually oriented offenses thus rendering the court‘s decision against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Assignment of Error II
The trial court‘s ordering that the sentences of Defendant-Appellant are to be served consecutively to each other was unsupported by the record and was contrary to law.
Assignment of Error I
{¶ 7} In his first assignment of errоr, Watkins maintains that the trial court erred in finding that he was a sexual predator. He contends that such a finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9} In determining whether a defendant is a sexual predator, thе trial court must consider a non-exclusive list of ten factors.
{¶ 10} After loоking at all of the evidence and applying the statutory factors of
{¶ 11} The question of whether mаnifest weight claims in sexual predator cases should be addressed under the civil standard set forth in C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, syllabus or the criminal standard enumerated in State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 has become an issue that has not been uniformly resolved among Ohio‘s appellate districts. State v. Robertson, 147 Ohio App.3d 94, 2002-Ohio-494, at ¶ 44. However, evеn the more stringent criminal standard requires a finding that “the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the proceeding must be reversed” to overturn such a determination. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387.
{¶ 12} In this case the trial court, after considering the presentence investigation and Watkins’ psychological report, on the record explicitly went through each of the ten factors enumerated in
{¶ 13} All of the trial court‘s findings are clеarly supported by the record. Looking at these findings, we cannot say that it clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the proceeding must be reversed. Therefore, wе hold that the trial court‘s judgment that Watkins is a sexual predator was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and we overrule his first assignment of error.
Assignment of Error II
{¶ 14} In his second assignment of error, Watkins asserts that the trial сourt erred in ordering his sentences to be served consecutively. He argues that the trial court failed to follow the statutory sentencing guidelines required to impose consecutive sentences.
{¶ 15} The structurе of Ohio felony sentencing law provides that the trial court‘s findings under
{¶ 16} An appellate court may modify a trial court‘s sentence only if it clearly and convincingly finds either (1) that the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings or (2) that the sentence is contrary to the law.
{¶ 17}
that the conseсutive sentence is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the оffender‘s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following:
* * *
(c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentenсes are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
In determining whether consecutives sentences are warranted under this section, the trial court must consider the nonexclusive list of seriousness and recidivism factors located in
{¶ 18} The trial court sub judice made on the record findings that Watkins’ conduct and criminal history demonstrated that consecutive sentences were necessary tо protect the public from future crime by Watkins and that the sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of his offense or the danger that he poses to the public.
{¶ 19} In finding that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime by Watkins, the trial court considered the required statutory factors of
{¶ 20} Furthermore, in finding that the consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to thе seriousness of his offense or the danger that he poses to the public, the trial court considered the mental injury Watkins had inflicted upon the victim and found that such injury was exacerbated due to her age. The court also found that Watkins had used his relationship as her stepfather to facilitate the offense. The trial court found that no mitigating factors were present. These findings by the trial court are supported by the record.
{¶ 21} We find that the trial court considered all of the mandatory factors, stated its reason for making its findings on the record, and that the record supports these findings. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not еrr in ordering Watkins’ sentences to be served consecutively. Accordingly, Watkins’ second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 22} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
Cupp and Bryant, J