STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MICHAEL R. WILSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 7-12-25
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HENRY COUNTY
November 25, 2013
2013-Ohio-5195
Appeal from Henry County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court No. 11-CR-0089. Judgment Affirmed.
Robert E. Searfoss, III for Appellant
J. Hawken Flanagan for Appellee
SHAW, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Michael R. Wilson (Wilson) appeals the December 21, 2012, judgment entry of the Henry County Common Pleas Court sentencing Wilson to an aggregate prison term of 25 years following Wilson’s guilty pleas to five counts of Gross Sexual Imposition in violation of
{¶2} The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows.1 Over a period of time spanning roughly from February 2011 to November 2011, Wilson engaged in sexual contact with a 7-year-old girl.2 The victim and her parents were living with Wilson at the time. When the victim’s parents were away on the weekends, Wilson would watch the victim and play “house” with her, engaging in sexual contact.
{¶3} On November 30, 2011, Wilson was indicted for five counts of Gross Sexual Imposition in violation of
{¶5} On April 16, 2012, Wilson filed a “Motion to Determine Competency of Alleged Victim.” (Doc. 26).
{¶6} On April 27, 2012, a hearing was held to determine the victim’s competency. An interview was conducted with the victim, who was 8 years old at the time, and it was ultimately determined that the victim was competent, and that she would be permitted to testify at trial. (Doc. 32).
{¶7} On October 10, 2012, a change-of-plea hearing was held wherein, pursuant to a written negotiated plea agreement, Wilson pled guilty to all five counts of Gross Sexual Imposition as charged in the indictment, and the State dismissed the Rape charge against Wilson. At the hearing, the court engaged in a
{¶8} On December 17, 2012, a sentencing/sex offender classification hearing was held. At the hearing, the trial court informed Wilson that he was designated as a Tier II sex offender. The court then proceeded to sentencing. During the sentencing hearing, the State argued that the victim of the crimes was 8
{¶9} Defense counsel then spoke in mitigation of sentence, stating that Wilson had no prior criminal history, that Wilson was abused as a child, that Wilson did not understand due to his prior abuse that what he was doing was wrong, and that Wilson fell apart after his wife died. (Dec. 17, 2012, Tr. at 7-10). Wilson then made a statement apologizing for what he had done. (Id. at 11-12).
{¶10} Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Wilson to five years in prison on each count of Gross Sexual Imposition, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate prison sentence of 25 years. A judgment entry memorializing this sentence was filed December 21, 2012. (Doc. 53).
{¶11} It is from this judgment that Wilson appeals, asserting the following assignment of error for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION SENTENCING APPELLANT TO THE MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS IN PRISON FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
{¶12} In Wilson’s assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum prison term of five years on each of five counts of
{¶13} A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant‘s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the record; the sentencing statutes’ procedure was not followed or there was not a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prison term; or that the sentence is contrary to law. E.g. State v. Woten, 3d. Dist. Allen No. 1-12-40, 2013-Ohio-1394, ¶ 19; State v. Ramos, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4–06–24, 2007–Ohio–767, ¶ 23 (the clear and convincing evidence standard of review set forth under
{¶14} A reviewing court must conduct a meaningful review of the trial court‘s imposed sentence. State v. Daughenbaugh, 3d Dist. No. 16-07-07, 2007-Ohio-5774, ¶ 8, citing State v. Carter, 11th Dist. No.2003–P–0007, 2004-Ohio-1181. In particular,
(2) The court hearing an appeal * * * shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court‘s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings under division (B) or (D) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶15} Revised Code Chapter 2929 governs sentencing.
{¶16} In accordance with these principles, the trial court must consider the factors set forth under
(B) The sentencing court shall consider all of the following that apply regarding the offender, the offense, or the victim, and any other relevant factors, as indicating that the offender‘s conduct is more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense:
(1) The physical or mental injury suffered by the victim of the offense due to the conduct of the offender was exacerbated because of the physical or mental condition or age of the victim.
(2) The victim of the offense suffered serious physical, psychological, or economic harm as a result of the offense.
* * *
(6) The offender’s relationship with the victim facilitated the offense.
Notably, although
THE COURT: I will note there is no prior history; there is no prior criminal history here. The Court though, looks at these cases very, very, very seriously. I’ve taken into consideration the information I do receive in the pre-sentence investigation. I’ve read the report of Dr. Braum this morning and it did give me pause. I went back and looked at the criteria as set forth in the Revised Code of Ohio with regard to 2929.11 and 2929.12 as well as 2929.14 of the Revised Code and with regard to the sentence the Court will impose with regard to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 consecutive terms of 5 years on each count or 60 months I guess that is how it’s termed.
(Dec. 17, 2012, Tr. at 14). Thus at the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that it had considered the appropriate statutes and the pre-sentence investigation. The trial court’s judgment entry of sentence also reflected that it had considered the appropriate sentencing statutes, including
{¶18} Wilson argues on appeal that the trial court improperly weighed the factors in
{¶20} Moreover, notwithstanding Wilson’s contention, there is simply no evidence in the record before us illustrating that Wilson was unable to understand that his conduct was wildly inappropriate and criminal. To the contrary, Wilson graduated high school and served in the United States Navy. He could read and write and had apparently raised a child with his now-deceased wife. There is nothing in the record to indicate a lack of mental awareness on the part of Wilson that what he was doing was a serious crime. However, even if the record had
{¶21} For the foregoing reasons Wilson’s assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the Henry County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
/jlr