State v. Bowers

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 30

Syllabus

SENTENCING - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL: Where defendant was found guilty of raping a child, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), with the accompanying specification that the child was under ten years old, the trial court had three sentencing options according to the plain language of the relevant statutes: under R.C. 2907.02(B), the trial court could have imposed a sentence of life without parole under R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(b), a sentence of 15 years to life and under R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(c), a sentence of 25 years to life upon a finding by the court that the defendant had compelled his victim to submit by force. [But see DISSENT: The trial court's finding of force unconstitutionally raised the mandatory minimum sentence from 15 years to life to 25 years to life.] Judicial fact-finding that creates a middle sentencing option, i.e., one that does not raise the sentencing floor or ceiling, is constitutionally permissible and does not violate Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), or Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). [But see DISSENT: Judicial fact-finding that raises the mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutional and where the jury found that the victim of defendant's rape was under ten, but defendant was not charged with or found guilty by the jury of the use or threat of force, the trial court erred in increasing the minimum sentence to 25 years to life upon its finding that defendant had used force.]