State v. Smith

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 5015

Syllabus

The trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty after a bench trial of three counts of sexual battery and three counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, or in sentencing appellant consecutively on the sexual battery offenses. The victim's testimony that sexual encounters with appellant took place in appellant's Montgomery County home provided sufficient evidence to support an inference of proper venue as to the sexual battery offenses. Alternatively, venue was proper because the sexual battery offenses were part of a course of criminal conduct that included acts within Montgomery County. A challenge to revocation of appellant's own-recognizance bond was moot in light of appellant's conviction, and the trial court acted within its discretion in revoking that bond after a hearing. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion to continue sentencing where appellant absconded during trial and his professed double jeopardy concerns did not warrant further delay. Regarding allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, appellant did not object to the prosecutor's remarks during opening and closing, those remarks were not improper, and appellant did not demonstrate plain error. Imposition of consecutive sentences was not contrary to law or unsupported by the record, as the trial court did not engage in sentence packaging and the record supports both the course of conduct findings and the findings that the harm caused was great and unusual. Finally, allegations of judicial bias did not warrant reversal where the Supreme Court denied appellant's affidavit of disqualification and the trial court's statements did not reflect a degree of antagonism that made a fair trial impossible. Judgment affirmed.