Login | April 25, 2024
11th District appellate court remands child sex case
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: May 24, 2016
A Trumbull County trial court committed plain error by ordering consecutive sentences in a child rape case, the 11th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.
Tyler Aikens was convicted by a jury of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition involving a 10-year-old child.
He was sentenced to 25- years-to-life for rape, plus five years on count two and five years on count 3. The judge ordered the two five-year terms to be served concurrently to each other, but consecutively to count one.
According to case summary, the victim, E.D., testified Aikens took him and his two younger brothers into a bedroom to watch movies in November 2013. A shirtless Aikens got under the covers with them wearing only underwear.
After the younger brothers fell asleep, Aikens made E.D. touch his private parts and perform oral sex on him. He later warned the victim not to tell anyone.
Aikens’ adult male lover testified he caught the defendant under the covers with the boy, and that Aikens appeared “startled” when he entered the room.
About a month later, the boy told what had happened with Aikens after Aikens hit him at church, and a police report was filed.
On appeal, Aikens argued the trial court failed to make the factual findings necessary for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C).
The appellate panel agreed the sentence was contrary to law.
“We note that the trial court found in its judgment on sentence that the harm done in this case was so great that a single term does not adequately reflect the seriousness of his conduct. However, the trial court did not find during the sentencing hearing that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct,” 11th District Judge Thomas R. Wright wrote in his majority opinion.
“Contrary to the state’s argument, this is not simply a case where the trial court failed to give a talismanic incantation of the statutory findings during the sentencing hearing; the court said nothing about the proportionality of consecutive sentences to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct.”
In addition, the trial court failed to find that at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, Wright added.
The panel vacated Aikens’ sentence and instructed the trial court to make all statutory findings if it re-imposes consecutive sentences during the resentencing.
Eleventh District Judge Colleen Mary O’Toole concurred.
Appellate Judge Diane V. Grendell agreed that the trial court failed to make the required findings for proportionality and course of conduct.
However, Grendell dissented from the conclusion that the lower court failed to justify why a single prison term would not be adequate.
Grendell noted that the Ohio Supreme Court has held that a “word for word recitation” of the sentencing statutes is not necessary.
“At Aikens’ sentencing hearing, the trial court found that `the harm done in this case was extraordinary,’ “ Grendell stated.
The case is cited State v. Aikens, 2016-Ohio-2795.