State v. Deck , 2021 Ohio 3145 ( 2021 )

[Cite as State v. Deck, 2021-Ohio-3145.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2020-10-066
: OPINION
- vs - 9/13/2021
:
JAMES N. DECK, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. 20CR36468
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice
Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for appellee
Timothy J. McKenna, 125 East Court Street, Suite 950, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45202, for
appellant
HENDRICKSON, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, James Deck, appeals a decision of the Warren County Court of
Common Pleas finding him guilty of rape and sentencing him to life without parole in prison.
{¶ 2} A grand jury indicted Deck for one count of rape of a child under the age of
13 in violation of R.C.2907.02(A)(1)(b). The indictment further stated that the victim was
under the age of 10 at the time of the offense and that Deck purposely compelled the victim
to submit by force or threat of force. Deck waived his right to a jury trial and the case
Warren CA2020-10-066
proceeded to a bench trial.
{¶ 3} At trial, the victim testified that he lived with Deck when he was 8 or 9 years
old. The victim described an incident in which Deck instructed him to go into the bedroom
and anally raped him. The victim did not tell anyone about the rape until several years later.
In his defense, Deck testified that the incident never happened and, through testimony and
cross-examination, advanced a theory that the victim made up the incident to create a bond
with a new friend.
{¶ 4} The trial court found Deck guilty as charged. At sentencing, the court
indicated that by statute, it had no other sentencing option and sentenced Deck to life in
prison without parole. Deck now appeals his conviction and sentence, raising four
assignments of error for our review. His first and second assignments of error challenge
the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence and will be discussed together.1
{¶ 5} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT AS THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT.
{¶ 6} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT BECAUSE THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE.
{¶ 7} Whether the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict
is a question of law. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 1997-Ohio 52 (1997);
State v. Grinstead, 194 Ohio App.3d 755, 2011-Ohio-3018, ¶ 10, (12th Dist.). When
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, an appellate court
examines the evidence in order to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would
1. We note that appellant's brief presents the first and second assignments of error and numbers them as
such, argues them together, then presents third and fourth assignments of error which the brief numbers as
second and third assignments of error. As there are four enumerated assignments of error in the brief, we
have designated them as such in this opinion.
-2-
Warren CA2020-10-066
convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Paul, 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2011-10-026, 2012-Ohio-3205, ¶ 9. Therefore, "[t]he
relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph
two of the syllabus.
{¶ 8} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge, on the other hand, examines the
"inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side
of the issue rather than the other." State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177,
2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14. To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight
of the evidence, the reviewing court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and
all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether
in resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created
such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial
ordered. State v. Graham, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-07-095, 2009-Ohio-2814, ¶ 66.
"While appellate review includes the responsibility to consider the credibility of witnesses
and weight given to the evidence, 'these issues are primarily matters for the trier of fact to
decide.'" State v. Barnes, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-06-009, 2011-Ohio-5226, ¶ 81,
quoting State v. Walker, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-04-085, 2007-Ohio-911, ¶ 26.
{¶ 9} An appellate court, therefore, will overturn a conviction due to the manifest
weight of the evidence only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented
at trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal. Id., citing Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387.
Furthermore, although the legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the
evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different, "[a] determination that a
conviction is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence will also be dispositive of the
-3-
Warren CA2020-10-066
issue of sufficiency." State v. Jones, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-03-049, 2013-Ohio-150,
¶ 19.
{¶ 10} As discussed above, Deck was charged with rape in violation of R.C.
2907.02(A)(1)(b). This section provides "No person shall engage in sexual conduct with
another * * * when * * * the other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not
the offender knows the age of the other person." The indictment also stated that Deck
"purposely compelled the victim to submit by force or threat of force" and that the victim
was less than 10 years old at the time of the offense.
{¶ 11} At trial, the victim testified that in 2015 when he was 8 or 9 years old, he, his
mother, and his two sisters lived with Deck. The victim testified that his mother spent most
of the time sleeping in her bed and Deck was responsible for disciplining the children.
According to the victim, Deck acted like he was the children's dad and Deck would punish
the victim when he did something wrong. As punishment, Deck would hit the victim with a
belt, a studded belt or a wooden cane. The victim testified that one night, Deck told him to
go to his room and he followed the command because he was afraid of Deck and what
Deck would do if he didn't listen.
{¶ 12} Deck followed the victim into the room and told him to take off his clothes.
Deck then either told the victim to get on the floor on his hands and knees or pushed him
into that position. The victim testified that Deck then got on his knees, grabbed the victim's
lower hips, put his penis into the victim's "butt" and went back and forth with his hips. The
victim stated that it hurt, and he cried and told Deck to stop, but Deck shrugged it off. The
victim stated the incident lasted ten minutes at most and then Deck got up, put on his clothes
and told the victim not to tell anyone. The victim testified that he had a burning sensation
in his "butt" and it hurt, and he went to sleep crying. He indicated that he didn't tell anyone
because he was scared and his mother always took Deck's side.
-4-
Warren CA2020-10-066
{¶ 13} About three weeks later, the victim was hospitalized because of aggressive
behavior, wetting the bed and alleged incidents of smearing feces on the wall. A children's
services caseworker testified that during the hospitalization, bruising on the victim's body
was noted and the children's services agency became involved. After an investigation,
abuse and neglect was substantiated. All the children were removed from the home and
the victim's paternal grandmother was granted custody. The case was eventually closed in
2017. The mother later regained custody of the children and the family moved to another
state.
{¶ 14} After the move, the victim was talking to a neighbor, who indicated that she
had been separated from her mother, and the victim indicated that he had been separated
from his mother for a while as well. The two discussed how they had both been abused
and how they coped with the abuse and separation from their mothers. The neighbor asked
the victim if he had ever been sexually abused and the victim responded that he had. The
victim's sister overheard the discussion and told the children's mother. The incident was
then reported to the police and Deck was arrested and charged with rape.
{¶ 15} In his defense, Deck testified that the incident never happened and that he
was blindsided by the allegations. He described several issues with the victim's story,
including the fact that the children and their mother had to have been in the small apartment
at the time and noises could be heard throughout because of echoes. On cross-
examination, Deck's attorney questioned the victim about why he did not tell anyone, even
after he felt safe. The defense also presented testimony from the children's services worker
and verified that although the victim described physical abuse, he did not report any sexual
abuse during the hospitalization or children's services investigation.
{¶ 16} Deck now argues that the evidence to support his conviction for rape was
insufficient and against the manifest weight of the evidence for several reasons. First, he
-5-
Warren CA2020-10-066
argues that there was no showing of force or a threat of force.
{¶ 17} The element of "force" is defined in R.C. 2901.01(A) as "any violence,
compulsion, or constraint physically exerted by any means upon or against a person or
thing." However, the definition of "force" changes when the victim is a child, to account for
the fact that adults can compel children to submit to sexual conduct by means of
psychological coercion or use of authority over the child. State v. Grant, 12th Dist. Brown
Nos. CA2014-03-005, and CA2014-03-006, 2015-Ohio-723, ¶ 20-23; State v. Eskridge, 38
Ohio St.3d 56 (1988); State v. Dye, 82 Ohio St.3d 323, 1998 Ohio 234 (1998). "The force
and violence necessary to commit the crime of rape depends upon the age, size and
strength of the parties and their relation to each other." Eskridge at paragraph one of the
syllabus.
{¶ 18} When a child is a victim of a rape offense, the "force" requirement "need not
be overt and physically brutal, but can be subtle and psychological." Id. at 58-59; State v.
Grant, 12th Dist. Brown Nos. CA2014-03-005, CA2014-03-006, 2015-Ohio-723, ¶ 20-23;
State v. Rankin, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2004-06-015, 2005-Ohio-6165, ¶ 47. "A child's
will can be overcome by fear and duress when an important figure of authority tells the child
to do something, and commands the child not to tell anyone about it." Grant at ¶ 23. "When
the state proves that the child's will was overcome by fear or duress, the forcible element
of rape is established." Id.{¶ 19} In this case, the victim testified that Deck was responsible for disciplining him,
acted like he was the victim's father and would punish him when he did something wrong.
The victim described the type of physical punishment inflicted by Deck and stated that on
the night of the rape, he followed Deck's commands because he was afraid of Deck and
what Deck would do if he didn't listen. This evidence establishes the force element.
{¶ 20} In these assignments of error, Deck also presents several factual arguments,
-6-
Warren CA2020-10-066
including an argument that the victim's story lacked specificity regarding the time of the
offense and was not corroborated in any way. He also argues the allegation came out after
five years, and only when talking to a girl, and the situation "snowballed" and then the victim
couldn't retract it. He further argues there were no statements to professionals or family,
no physical evidence, it is impossible that no one heard the offense taking place, and the
victim gave inconsistent descriptions.
{¶ 21} However, inconsistencies in the evidence alone do not mean that a decision
is against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. McMullen, Butler App. No. CA2005-
09-414, 2006 Ohio 4557, ¶ 31. When there is a conflict in the testimony of witnesses, it is
for the trier of fact to determine the weight and credibility to be given to such evidence.
State v. Marcum, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-05-057, 2018-Ohio-1009, ¶ 31, citing State
v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. It is within the province
of the trier of fact to consider any inconsistencies in the testimony and resolve them
accordingly, believing all, part, or none of each witness's testimony." State v. Robinson,
12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-08-163, 2019-Ohio-3144, ¶ 29; State v. Lark, 12th Dist.
Fayette No. CA2018-03-004, 2018-Ohio-4940, ¶ 29.
{¶ 22} The trial court heard all the testimony, including all of the inconsistencies and
issues Deck now raises. As the trier of fact, the court resolved these inconsistencies and
found Deck was guilty of rape. After reviewing the record and the issues involved in this
assignment of error, we find the court's determination was not against the manifest weight
of the evidence, and was therefore supported by sufficient evidence. Deck's first and
second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 23} THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL
COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY SECTION 10, ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION AND THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.
-7-
Warren CA2020-10-066
{¶ 24} In his third assignment of error, Deck contends that trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to engage an independent expert to establish the lack of reliability in
late-disclosed sexual abuse.
{¶ 25} To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an appellant must
establish that (1) his trial counsel's performance was deficient and (2) he was prejudiced by
the deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 104 S.Ct.
2052 (1984). Trial counsel's performance will not be deemed deficient unless it "fell below
an objective standard of reasonableness." Id. at 688. To show prejudice, the appellant
must prove there exists "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional
errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694. An appellant's
failure to satisfy one prong of the Strickland test negates a court's need to consider the
other. State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St. 3d 378, 389, 2000-Ohio-448 (2000).
{¶ 26} It is well established that the failure to call an expert and instead rely on cross-
examination does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Hunter, 131
Ohio St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 66; State v. Fuell, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2020-02-
008, 2021-Ohio-1627, ¶ 53.
{¶ 27} Deck argues that an expert was necessary to establish that the victim's
disclosure several years after the event was unreliable. He argues a defense expert "could
have discredited the state's theory that 'victims of sexual abuse don't tell until they tell'" and
"could have cast doubt on the veracity, or at least the reliability" of the delayed allegations.
{¶ 28} However, Deck's argument that a defense expert was necessary to impeach
the victim's testimony is purely speculative. He fails to identify the expert witness who
should have been called or what the expert would have said. State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio
St.3d 67, 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 66. Moreover, this court has no way of knowing exactly how
an expert would testify given the facts of this case or whether an expert would have
-8-
Warren CA2020-10-066
presented favorable testimony for Deck. Without this knowledge, there is no way to
determine if the expert testimony would be helpful to Deck's defense. In addition, there is
also the possibility that the testimony, or cross-examination of an expert on delayed
disclosure of sexual abuse, could have been damaging to Deck's defense.
Accordingly, we find trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call an expert
witness on the unreliability of delayed disclosure of sexual abuse. Deck's third assignment
of error is overruled.
{¶ 29} THE TRIAL COURT INCORRECTLY APPLIED THE RAPE SENTENCING
SCHEME.
{¶ 30} In his final assignment of error, Deck argues that the trial court erred in
sentencing him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He contends that the trial
court used the wrong statutory provision in sentencing him, determining that it did not have
discretion in the sentence imposed.
{¶ 31} An appellate court reviews an imposed sentence under the standard of review
set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which governs all felony sentences. State v. Marcum, 146
Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1; State v. Crawford, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2012-
12-088, 2013-Ohio-3315, ¶ 6. Pursuant to that statute, an appellate court does not review
the sentencing court's decision for an abuse of discretion. Marcum at ¶ 10. Rather, R.C.
2953.08(G)(2) compels an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence only if the
appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that "the record does not support the
trial court's findings under relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to
law." Id. at ¶ 1. A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial
court "considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed
in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes postrelease control, and sentences the defendant within
the permissible statutory range." State v. Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-100,
-9-
Warren CA2020-10-066
2016-Ohio-2890, ¶ 8; State v. Julious, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-224, 2016-Ohio-
4822, ¶ 8. Thus, this court may "increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only
when it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is (1) contrary to law or (2)
unsupported by the record." State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221, 2016-Ohio-2970,
¶ 1, citing Marcum at ¶ 7.
{¶ 32} At sentencing, the trial court stated, "Mr. Deck, by statute, the Court has no
discretion in your sentence in this case." (Emphasis added.) The court's sentencing entry
states that the sentence is pursuant to R.C. 2971.03(A)(2) which mandates a sentence of
life without parole when, in addition to other requirements, the victim is under the age of ten
and force was used.
{¶ 33} R.C. 2971.03(A)(2) addresses sentencing pursuant to a sexually violent
predator ("SVP") specification. Deck argues this section does not apply because the court
did not specifically determine that the victim was under the age of 10 and because the court
did not specifically find he was a sexually violent predator.
{¶ 34} After the bench trial, the court stated:
Based on the evidence that's been presented, the Court finds
that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [Deck]
did engage in sexual conduct with [the victim], who was not his
spouse, and that [the victim] was less than 13 years of age at
the time of the offense. The court further finds that [Deck]
purposely compelled [the victim] to submit by force or threat of
force. Therefore, as to count 1, the Court finds the defendant
guilty as he stands charged in the indictment.
{¶ 35} Although the determination that the victim was under the age of ten was not
stated specifically on the record, as discussed above, the court found Deck guilty of rape
"as charged in the indictment." The indictment specifically stated that the victim was under
the age of 10. Although stating the finding specifically on the record after trial would have
been preferable, this was a bench trial and the court and parties were all aware of the
- 10 -
Warren CA2020-10-066
charges in the indictment. See State v. Eafford, 132 Ohio St.3d 159, 2012-Ohio-2224 (jury
verdict form stating defendant was guilty "as charged in the indictment" was sufficient to
establish aggravating element).
{¶ 36} Moreover, in the judgment entry of conviction, the court specifically stated a
finding that the victim was under the age of ten. Given that this was a bench trial, the
judgment entry was the functional equivalent of a jury form. See State v. Sims, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 89261, 2007-Ohio-6821; see also State v. Sims, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-
150252, and C-150253, 2015-Ohio-4996 (safeguards necessary for a jury trial not
necessary in a bench trial where court is aware of charge in the indictment). Therefore,
there was a sufficient determination that the victim was under the age of 10 based on the
court's statement that it found Deck guilty "as charged in the indictment" and the specific
finding in the judgment entry.
{¶ 37} However, although the court's determination that the victim was under the age
of ten was sufficient, the SVP statute is inapplicable in this case. First, R.C. 2971.03(A) by
its terms only applies to an offender who was convicted of a sexually violent predator
specification included in the indictment. State v. Bowers, Hamilton No. C-150024, 2016-
Ohio-904, ¶ 41. No SVP specification was included in the indictment in this case. In
addition, the SVP statute requires not only a determination that the offender has been
convicted of a sexually violent offense, but also a determination that the defendant "is likely
to engage in the future in one or more sexually violent offenses." R.C. 2971.01(H)(1). The
trial court did not make this determination. Factors for making this determination are found
in R.C. 2971.01(H)(2), none of which appear to apply in this case.2
2 The factors include multiple sexually oriented offenses, sexually deviant behavior, chronic offenses with
sexual motivation, torture/ritualistic acts in offense, or physical harm to the degree the victim's life was in
jeopardy.
- 11 -
Warren CA2020-10-066
{¶ 38} R.C. 2907.02(B) discusses sentencing for a conviction of rape. It provides
that a defendant convicted of rape of a child under the age of 13 in violation of R.C.
2907.02(A)(1)(b) shall be sentenced pursuant to the standards in R.C. 2971.03. In addition,
this section provides a discretionary option for sentencing a defendant to life without parole
under certain circumstances, such as when the victim is under the age of ten years old.
This option is clearly discretionary, as the statute states "the court may impose" life without
parole.
{¶ 39} If a court does not choose the discretionary option of life without parole
pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(B), and the SVP section does not apply, R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)
provides three sentencing options for a conviction of rape of a child under the age of 13.
State v. Bowers, 163 Ohio St.3d 28, 2020-Ohio-5167, ¶ 4-5; State v. Johnson, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 109127, 2020-Ohio-2947, ¶ 10-12. Without additional findings, the sentence
is ten years to life. R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(a). If the victim was under the age of ten, the
sentence is 15 years to life. R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(b). If force was used in the rape offense,
if the offender has a previous conviction or if there was serious physical harm, the sentence
is 25 years to life. R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(c).
{¶ 40} Therefore, the trial court erred in sentencing Deck pursuant to a Revised Code
section that did not apply and that mandated a term of life without parole. Although life
without parole is a sentencing option pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(B), this section is
discretionary and the court erred when it stated that by statute, it had no choice other than
to sentence Deck to life in prison without parole.
{¶ 41} Sentencing errors based on mistaken beliefs by a trial court that it was
required or could not consider specific sentences have regularly been reversed. See e.g.
State v. Sutton, 2008-Ohio-5839 (although consecutive sentence authorized, court
mistakenly believed they were required and did not consider the issue); State v. Damron,
- 12 -
Warren CA2020-10-066
129 Ohio St.3d 86, 2011-Ohio-2268 (even though sentence fell within statutory range, case
was remanded because trial court applied erroneous legal reasoning that removed a
sentencing option from consideration); State v. Sawyer, 11th Dist. Portage No, 2011-P-
0003, 2012-Ohio-5119, (erroneous imposition of mandatory prison term was plain error);
State v. Rivera, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-945, 2012-Ohio-1915 (case reversed where
trial court erroneously believed it could not impose consecutive sentences); State v. Allen,
Franklin Nos. 11AP-640, 11AP-641, and 11AP-642, 2012-Ohio-2986 (reversal because trial
court mistakenly believed consecutive sentences required, even though state argued plain
error and that resulting sentence was authorized by law); State v. Bowers, 2016-Ohio-904(court mistakenly applied sexually violent predator specification).
{¶ 42} Therefore, we find the court erred when it sentenced Deck to life without
parole pursuant to R.C. 2971.03(A) and sustain Deck's fourth assignment of error. The
sentence is hereby vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose
of resentencing. In all other respects, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
{¶ 43} Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
PIPER, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.
- 13 -