Youngstown Daily Legal News

Judges affirm consecutive sentences for man convicted of nine counts of rape

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 18, 2013

In a recently issued opinion, the 5th District Court of Appeals affirmed consecutive sentences for a man convicted of gross sexual imposition and nine counts of rape.

James Baker was indicted on 19 counts in May 2012. He pleaded guilty to 10 counts, including nine counts of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition, shortly after his indictment.

In exchange for Baker’s pleas, the state requested and was granted nolle prosequi on the remaining counts and agreed to take no position with regard to Baker’s sentence. The court ordered a pre-sentence investigation and ordered Baker to undergo a psychological examination. The results of that examination were included in the PSI, which the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas reviewed before sentencing Baker.

“I understand that you have some limited mental abilities, but it’s also clear to me that you knew what you were doing was wrong and you continued to do that,” the trial court stated at sentencing.

The transcript of the sentencing hearing states that the trial court noted Baker’s victim was younger than 13. Under the Ohio Revised Code, the only sentence available for the first count of rape, as a first-degree felony, was 10 years to life in prison.

The common pleas court considered that Baker had no criminal history and was cooperative throughout the trial. Still, it found that “the harm caused by you is so great that a single term of imprisonment cannot adequately punish you for these offenses.” The trial judge ordered 5-year prison terms for the second, third and fourth counts of rape and ordered that they be served consecutively with each other and with the sentence for count one.

“In sentencing the defendant to consecutive prison terms, the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,” the trial court stated.

The judge explained that Baker “stole” from his victim and “took from her her innocence,” which “she can never regain.”

Baker was sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment with possibility of parole after 25 years. He appealed to the Fifth District and claimed that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences.

Under the Ohio Revised Code, a trial court may not issue consecutive sentences without first finding that it is necessary to protect the public, that it is not disproportionate to the offense committed and that at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct that caused such great harm that a single prison term cannot reflect the serious nature of the offense.

“Our review on appeal of any subsequent resentencing will be directed at looking at the entire trial court record to determine if that record supports the trial court’s findings that the R.C. 2929.14(C) factors were met,” Fifth District Presiding Judge Scott Gwin wrote for the court.

After reviewing the trial court’s transcripts, the three-judge appellate panel found that the trial court properly considered each factor. It determined that the common pleas judge specifically addressed the importance of protecting the public and the serious nature of Baker’s offense, including that the young girl would have to carry the effects with her for the rest of her life.

“We further hold the trial court’s consecutive sentences in this matter are not unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable, and they are not contrary to law.

“Baker’s sole assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed,” Gwin stated.

Judges John Wise and Craig Baldwin joined Gwin to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Baker, case No. 2013-Ohio-2891.

[Back]