Youngstown Daily Legal News

Appeals court upholds long sentence for man who raped young girl

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 17, 2013

A 12th District Court of Appeals panel recently ruled that a man’s 20 years to life prison sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl.

“After a thorough review of the record, we find no evidence to even remotely suggest (Pasquale) Accorinti’s aggregate sentence of 20 years to life imprisonment for raping a 12-year-old girl would shock the conscience of the community,” Judge Stephen Powell wrote for the court.

Case summary states that Accorinti was charged with four counts of rape, three counts of gross sexual imposition, one count of attempted rape and one count of kidnapping in June 2012.

The charges alleged that Accorinti forced a 12-year-old girl to engage in multiple sexual acts with him against her will including vaginal and digital intercourse.

Accorinti initially pleaded not guilty to all charges but entered a plea agreement on Oct. 10, 2012 in which he agreed to plead guilty to two counts of rape and one count of kidnapping and the remaining counts would be merged.

The parties also agreed that the state would request an aggregate sentence of 20 years to life in prison on the two rape charges.

The Butler County Court of Common Pleas accepted the plea agreement and the matter proceeded to sentencing on Oct. 17, 2012.

At the hearing, the trial court reiterated that if Accorinti pleaded guilty it would impose two consecutive 10 years to life sentences.

“So the maximum sentence will be 20 years to life in prison, and those are 20 years of actual incarceration. In other words, they’re mandatory time,” the trial court explained.

When asked if he understood, Accorinti responded in the affirmative and the trial court merged the kidnapping charge and sentenced him to 20 years to life in prison on the two counts of rape.

The court also ordered him to pay court costs but failed to inform him that he would be required to complete community service if he failed to pay those costs.

On appeal, Accorinti first argued that his two rape charges should have been merged for sentencing because there was “no separate animus for any of the alleged crimes.”

After review, the appellate judges stated that Accorinti’s counts of rape stemmed from digital rape and vaginal intercourse.

“These are two distinct types of sexual activity, each constituting a separate crime, for which Accorinti may be separately punished,” Judge Powell stated.

The judges ruled that the counts were committed separately and were therefore properly sentenced separately.

Accorinti next argued that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

The judges rejected his line of argument and held that the rape of a child “is shocking, outrageous, abominable, and it has enduring effects on the child.”

Thus, they held that Accorinti’s penalty was not disproportionate to his crime.

They also determined that the sentence was agreed upon prior to its implementation and was permissible under the guiding statute.

“Therefore, we find the mandatory and agreed upon sentence imposed by the trial court in this case simply cannot be deemed cruel and unusual punishment,” Judge Powell wrote.

The judges agreed with Accorinti, however, that the trial court erred by imposing costs without advising him of the potential penalties if he failed to pay them.

The state conceded on that point and the trial court remanded so that the court could notify him of the possible community service requirements.

“Therefore, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment imposing court costs only, affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment, and remand the matter to the trial court for the proper imposition of court costs in accordance with R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a).”

Presiding Judge Robert Hendrickson and Judge Robert Ringland concurred.

The case is cited State v. Accorinti, 2013-Ohio-4429.

[Back]