Login | April 23, 2024
Long sentence upheld for man who raped, impregnated 10-year-old
JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 23, 2014
A three-judge panel in the 3rd District Court of Appeals issued an opinion recently affirming a 30-year-to-life prison term for a man who repeatedly raped and impregnated a 10-year-old.
The Wyandot County Common Pleas Court convicted Oral Richard Oliver of three counts of rape and sentenced him to 30 years to life in prison earlier this year.
In his direct appeal, however, Oliver asserted that the trial court ordered consecutive sentences without first making the required findings.
The facts relevant to the case state that Oliver was charged with three counts of rape in February 2014.
The indictment alleged that Oliver, who was born in 1956, engaged in sexual intercourse with a girl was less than 13 years old at the time of his offense.
It further alleged that he ultimately impregnated her, resulting in a cesarean section to deliver the child.
Oliver ultimately pleaded guilty to all three charges and admitted that he had a “sexual relationship” with the 10-year-old girl.
He told the court that they had sexual intercourse five or six times, “I’m not sure how many.”
After reviewing a presentencing investigation report, the trial court held a sentencing hearing.
Oliver’s counsel made statements regarding Oliver’s clean criminal background, his cooperation with the investigation and his wish to take responsibility. Oliver made no statement on his own behalf.
The common pleas court sentenced Oliver to serve 10 years to life in prison on each count and ordered those counts to run consecutively for an aggregate term of 30 years to life in prison.
“In Oliver’s assignment of error he argues that the trial court failed to make the necessary findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences,” Judge Stephen Shaw wrote on behalf of the appellate court.
In its opinion, the 3rd District noted that a trial court must make specific findings prior to imposing consecutive sentences.
Those findings include that consecutive sentences are required to protect the public or punish the offender; that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the severity of the offense; and that one of the subsections apply.
One of those subsections states that consecutive sentences may be applicable when the harm caused by two or more of the offenses was so great that one prison term would not reflect the serious nature of the offense.
In Oliver’s case, the trial court specifically stated it was ordering consecutive prison terms to protect the public, punish Oliver, balance the seriousness of the offense and because of the harm caused to the victim.
“These were crimes of opportunity with a very vulnerable victim,” the trial court reasoned. It continued to state that the victim was caused great harm as she was impregnated by the offense.
“Moreover, the court also made findings at both the sentencing hearing and in its sentencing entry that Oliver ‘repeatedly’ raped a 10-year-old child and that he ultimately impregnated her resulting in a cesarean section to deliver the child, further indicating a finding of multiple offenses and great or unusual harm caused by those multiple offenses,” Judge Shaw stated.
The judges ruled that the trial court properly referenced Oliver’s multiple offenses and the harm caused by them.
They therefore overruled his assignment of error and affirmed the lower court’s sentence.
Presiding Judge John Willamowski and Judge Richard Rogers concurred.
The case is cited State v. Oliver, 2014-Ohio-3982.
Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved