State v. Hites

[Cite as State v. Hites, 2012-Ohio-1892.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HARDIN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 6-11-07
v.
SANDRA D. HITES, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hardin County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 20112162CRI
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: April 30, 2012
APPEARANCES:
David K. Goodin for Appellant
Bradford W. Bailey and Ryan Zerby for Appellee
Case No. 6-11-07
SHAW, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Sandra D. Hites (“Hites”), appeals the October
13, 2011 judgment of the Hardin County Court of Common Pleas sentencing her
to serve eight years in prison for her conviction on two counts of sexual battery.
{¶2} On August 4, 2011, the Hardin County Prosecutor filed a bill of
information alleging Hites committed two counts of sexual battery, in violation of
R.C. 2907.03(A)(7), both felonies of the third degree. On the same day, Hites also
signed a waiver of indictment and pled guilty to both counts listed in the bill of
information. The charges stemmed from two incidents during which Hites, a
teacher’s aide and a coach at a local school district, digitally penetrated the vagina
of a thirteen-year-old student on school premises.
{¶3} On October 11, 2011, Hites appeared for sentencing. At the
sentencing hearing, the prosecution recommended a prison term of three years on
each count of sexual battery to run consecutively for a total six-year sentence.
After considering the arguments from the prosecution, the defendant and her
counsel, the pre-sentence investigative report and a statement written by the
victim’s parents, in addition to the evidence contained in the record, the trial court
sentenced Hites to serve four years in prison on each count of sexual battery with
the prison terms to run consecutively for a total of eight years in prison. Hites was
-2-
Case No. 6-11-07
also classified as a Tier III sexual offender. Hites’ sentence was journalized in the
trial court’s October 13, 2011 judgment entry of conviction and sentence.
{¶4} Hites now appeals, asserting the following assignments of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
DEFENDANT’S EIGHT YEAR SENTENCE IS CONTRARY
TO LAW BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH
SENTENCES IMPOSED FOR SIMILAR CRIMES
COMMITTED BY SIMILAR OFFENDERS.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR
WHEN IT RELIED ON NEW MATERIAL FACTS IN
SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT CONTINUING
THE HEARING OR TAKING OTHER APPROPRIATE
ACTIONS TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANT AN ADEQUATE
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, AS REQUIRED BY [R.C.]
2930.14(B).
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III
THE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCES ARE VOID AND MUST
BE VACATED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT RELIED
UPON UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES, [R.C.]
2929.14(E)(4) AND [R.C.] 2929.14(E)(4)(b), WHEN
SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. IV
DEFENDANT’S EIGHT YEAR SENTENCE IS UNDULY
HARSH AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, AND
THEREFORE CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF THE TRIAL
COURT’S DISCRETION.
-3-
Case No. 6-11-07
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. V
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO LAW
BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT EMPLOYED THE
“SENTENCING PACKAGE” DOCTRINE.
{¶5} For ease of discussion, we elect to discuss some of Hites’
assignments of error together and out of order.
First, Fourth and Fifth Assignments of Error
{¶6} In her first, fourth and fifth assignments of error, Hites argues that the
trial court abused its discretion in imposing the eight-year prison term and asserts
that the prison term imposed by the trial court is contrary to law. Specifically,
Hites claims that the eight-year prison term imposed by the trial court is unduly
harsh and was not supported by the record. Hites also argues that the sentence
imposed by the trial court is contrary to law because it is inconsistent with
sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders and because
the trial court erroneously employed the “sentencing package” doctrine in
imposing Hites’ sentence.
{¶7} An appellate court must conduct a meaningful review of the trial
court’s sentencing decision. State v. Daughenbaugh, 3d Dist. No. 16–07–07,
2007–Ohio–5774, ¶ 8, citing State v. Carter, 11th Dist. No. 2003–P–0007, 2004–
Ohio–1181. In particular, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides the following regarding an
appellate court’s review of a sentence on appeal.
-4-
Case No. 6-11-07
The court hearing an appeal * * * shall review the record,
including the findings underlying the sentence or modification
given by the sentencing court.
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a
sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the
sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for
resentencing. The appellate court’s standard for review is not
whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The
appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if
it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s
findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division
(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section
2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶8} In addition, a sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably
calculated to achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing, which are
to protect the public from future crimes by the offender and others and to punish
the offender, and shall be commensurate with and not demeaning to the
seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact upon the victim, and
consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar
offenders.” See R.C. 2929.11(A),(B).
{¶9} Hites pled guilty to two counts of sexual battery in violation of R.C.
2907.03(A)(7), both felonies of the third degree. Revised Code Section
2907.03(A)(7) provides, in pertinent part.
-5-
Case No. 6-11-07
(A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not
the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:
(7) The offender is a teacher, administrator, coach, or other
person in authority employed by or serving in a school for which
the state board of education prescribes minimum standards
pursuant to division (D) of section 3301.07 of the Revised Code,
the other person is enrolled in or attends that school, and the
offender is not enrolled in and does not attend that school.
{¶10} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a), “[f]or a felony of the third degree
that is a violation of section * * * 2907.03 * * * of the Revised Code, * * * the
prison term shall be twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, thirty, thirty-six, forty-two,
forty-eight, fifty-four, or sixty months.” Here, the trial court sentenced Hites to
four years, or forty-eight months, on each count of sexual battery, which is within
the statutory range and not the maximum sentence the trial court was authorized to
impose. The trial court also determined that the facts of this case warranted
imposing the two, four-year prison terms to run consecutively.
{¶11} The revisions to the felony sentencing statutes under H.B. 86 now
require a trial court to make specific findings when imposing consecutive
sentences.1 In particular, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides, in relevant part:
(4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for
convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the
offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds
that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public
from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the
1
We note that because H.B. 86 took effect on September 30, 2011, and Hites was sentenced on October 13,
2011, the trial court was required to sentence Hites according to the revisions implemented in H.B. 86.
-6-
Case No. 6-11-07
offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the
public, and if the court also finds any of the following:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple
offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was
under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17,
or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release
control for a prior offense.
(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part
of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two
or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or
unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses
committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately
reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates
that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public
from future crimes by the offender.
Both on the record at the sentencing hearing and in the judgment entry of
conviction and sentence, the trial court articulated the appropriate findings
consistent with the directives of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Specifically, the trial court
made the following findings:
The Court finds that consecutive sentences are 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; and further, that the two offenses
were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct and
the harm caused by the two offenses was so great or unusual that
no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part
of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the
seriousness of the offender’s conduct.
(JE, Oct. 13, 2011 at p.4); (see, also, Trans. Oct. 11, 2011 Hrg. at p. 19).
-7-
Case No. 6-11-07
{¶12} In addition, the trial court also stated the following on the record at
the sentencing hearing regarding its rationale for imposing Hites’ sentence.
I went back, Ms. Hites, and checked my records, and there have
been people who committed sexual offenses in this county who
have been put on community control. Those offenses were
entirely different than this offense. The Court is very troubled
by the fact that you used a position of trust with this child, but
more importantly, that you used your position in the public
schools to facilitate one or more of these offenses. That causes
me great concern. [Your attorney] says you understand you
caused harm. I’m not sure how much harm you realize you’ve
caused, because it’s more than just this child. It’s a whole school
system, it’s a whole way of thinking about people and how they
interact with children. For someone who is dedicated to young
people, the Court doesn’t see that. Maybe there’s a lot of things
I wasn’t apprised of today, but this is not dedication to young
people, this is taking advantage of one young person. The Court
certainly, I would believe had this not come on a bill of
information, that you probably would be looking at a life
sentence in prison for these offenses at this point in time. So
anything the Court does, I would think would be something a
whole lot less than that, because I don’t have that ability * * *
the Court finds that you are not amenable to an available
combination of community control sanctions. [I] [f]ind that to
not send you to prison would be seriously ignoring the harm that
you have caused in this particular manner * * *[and] that only
prison can, in fact, justify punishment in this case.
(Trans. Oct. 11, 2011 Hrg. at pp. 16-18).
{¶13} Initially, we note that on appeal Hites claims the trial court
improperly used the “sentencing package” doctrine when it imposed consecutive
sentences. Specifically, Hites contends that the trial court attempted to achieve a
particular aggregate sentence and considered the two offenses as one group in
-8-
Case No. 6-11-07
order to impose an omnibus sentence, a sentencing concept which has been
rejected by the Supreme Court of Ohio. See State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176,
2006-Ohio-1245. In support of her argument, Hites points to a comment made by
the trial court during the sentencing hearing, in which the trial court stated the
following:
The Court certainly, I would believe had this not come on a bill
of information, that you probably would be looking at a life
sentence in prison for these offenses at this point in time.
(Trans. Oct. 11, 2011 Hrg. at pp. 17-18). Hites maintains that this comment
demonstrates that by imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court attempted to
impose a sentence more appropriate for the charge of rape rather than imposing a
sentence appropriate for the lesser charges of sexual battery for which Hites was
convicted. However, when this comment is taken out of isolation and viewed in
the context of the entire rationale stated by the trial court for imposing the
sentence, it is evident that the trial court relied on specific aggravating facts and
circumstances in the record when it imposed consecutive sentences for Hites’
conviction for two counts of sexual battery. There is no evidence in the record
that the trial court ignored the statutory provisions of sentencing in order to obtain
the result of a lengthy sentence. Thus, we find Hites’ claim that the trial court
improperly applied the “sentencing package” doctrine to her case to be meritless.
-9-
Case No. 6-11-07
{¶14} On appeal, Hites also argues that the sentence imposed by the trial
court is contrary to law because it is inconsistent with sentences imposed for
similar crimes committed by similar offenders. Hites further maintains that her
sentence is unduly harsh and not supported by the record. Initially, we note that
other appellate districts have stated the following regarding this issue:
R.C. 2929.11(B) imposes a duty upon the trial court to insure
consistency among the sentences it imposes. * * * [It is] also
recognized, however, that trial courts are limited in their ability
to address the consistency mandate, and appellate courts are
hampered in their review of this issue, by the lack of a reliable
body of data upon which they can rely. * * * “[A]lthough a
defendant cannot be expected to produce his or her own
database to demonstrate the alleged inconsistency, the issue
must at least be raised in the trial court and some evidence,
however minimal, must be presented to the trial court to provide
a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for
appeal.” Having failed to raise this issue at sentencing, [the
defendant] cannot now argue that the sentence imposed by the
trial court was inconsistent with those imposed on similar
offenders.
State v. Bell, 2d Dist. No. 2004-CA-5, 2005-Ohio-655, at ¶ 140, quoting State v.
Roberts, 8th Dist. No. 84070, 2005-Ohio-28, at ¶ 60, internal citations omitted;
see, also, State v. McClendon, 7th Dist. No. 11 MA 15, 2012-Ohio-1410, ¶ 15.
The record demonstrates that Hites failed to object to the sentence imposed by the
trial court at the sentencing hearing or to otherwise raise the issue challenging the
consistency of her sentence with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed
by similar offenders.
-10-
Case No. 6-11-07
{¶15} Moreover, Hites cites to a variety of other appellate decisions in
support of her arguments that the sentence imposed by the trial court is
inconsistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar
offenders and is unduly harsh and not supported by the record. However, there are
several distinguishing factors present when comparing this case to the ones cited
by Hites. We note that “there is no grid under Ohio law under which identical
sentences must be imposed for various classifications of offenders.” State v.
Allsup, 3d Dist. No. 6-10-09, 2011-Ohio-404, ¶ 56, citing State v. Dawson, 8th
Dist. No. 86417, 2006-Ohio-1083, ¶ 31. But rather, an appellate court must
examine the record not to decide whether the trial court “imposed a sentence that
is in lockstep with others, but whether the sentence is so unusual as to be outside
the mainstream of local judicial practice. Although the offense[s] may be similar,
distinguishing factors may justify dissimilar treatment.” Dawson at ¶ 31.
{¶16} Consequently, a consistent sentence is not achieved from a case-by-
case comparison, but by the trial court’s proper application of the statutory
sentencing guidelines. State v. Hall, 179 Ohio App.3d 727, 2008-Ohio-6228, ¶ 10.
Thus, a sentencing court is not required to make a comparison of the current case
to previous cases, but is required to appropriately apply the statutory sentencing
guidelines in order to maintain consistency. State v. Saur, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-
1195, 2011-Ohio-6662, ¶ 37, citing State v. Holloman, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-875,
-11-
Case No. 6-11-07
2008-Ohio-2650. Therefore, an offender cannot simply present other cases in
which an individual convicted of the same offense received a lesser sentence to
demonstrate that his sentence is disproportionate. State v. Hayes, 10th Dist. No.
08AP-233, 2009-Ohio-1100, ¶ 10.
{¶17} In the instant case, the record demonstrates that Hites was placed in a
position of trust at the victim’s school as a teacher’s aide, a coach and a mentor.
Hites began to take an interest in the thirteen-year-old victim and helped her
practice volleyball and basketball after school. The record indicates that the
incidents in question occurred in the school locker room and bathroom during and
after school hours. Some of these incidents occurred in the presence of a special
needs child, of whom Hites was placed in charge during the school day. There is
evidence in the record that Hites used this special needs child as an excuse to leave
her classroom during the school day so that she could see the victim. Hites was
able to get permission to take the victim out of her classroom to assist with the
child, and then took both the victim and the child to the locker room, where she
kissed, fondled, and digitally penetrated the victim in the presence of the child.
Even though Hites was charged with two counts of sexual battery, the record
indicates that Hites sexually abused the victim on several occasions.
{¶18} In imposing Hites’ sentence, the trial court specifically recited the
relevant facts and circumstances in the record to support the particular sentence
-12-
Case No. 6-11-07
imposed. The trial court also explicitly stated in its judgment entry of conviction
and sentencing that it considered the overriding purposes of the felony sentencing
statutes stated in R.C. 2929.11, and balanced the seriousness and recidivism
factors in R.C. 2929.12. In addition, the sentences imposed by the trial court did
not exceed the permissible statutory range for the offenses for which Hites was
convicted. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court
considered the necessary statutory provisions and appropriately applied them to
the particular facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, we are unpersuaded
by Hites’ contentions that her sentence is disproportionate to sentences imposed
for similar crimes committed by similar offenders and that her sentence is unduly
harsh and not supported by the record.
{¶19} Based on the foregoing discussion, Hites’ first, fourth and fifth
assignments of error are overruled.
Second Assignment of Error
{¶20} In her second assignment of error, Hites claims the trial court
committed prejudicial error when it relied on new material facts introduced at the
sentencing hearing without continuing the hearing or allowing her an adequate
opportunity to respond. Hites’ argument under this assignment of error stems
from the written statement of the victim’s parents which was read into the record
at sentencing by the court-appointed Victim’s Advocate. In this statement, the
-13-
Case No. 6-11-07
victim’s parents refer to allegations that Hites’ not only sexual abused their
daughter, but physically abused her as well by punching her on four occasions and
shoving her, causing her to fall down and injure her knee. Hites relies on R.C.
2930.14(B) in support of her argument, which states that
The court shall consider a victim’s statement made under
division (A) of this section along with other factors that the court
is required to consider in imposing sentence or in determining
the order of disposition. If the statement includes new material
facts, the court shall not rely on the new material facts unless it
continues the sentencing or dispositional proceeding or takes
other appropriate action to allow the defendant or alleged
juvenile offender an adequate opportunity to respond to the new
material facts.
{¶21} Initially, we note that R.C. 2930.14 only addresses a victim’s
statement. However, R.C. 2929.19(A) permits the offender, the prosecuting
attorney, the victim or the victim’s representative in accordance with section
2930.14 of the Revised Code, and, with the approval of the court, any other person
to present information relevant to the imposition of sentence in the case at the
sentencing hearing. Regardless of who made the statement, the issue on appeal is
the same—specifically, whether the record indicates that the trial court relied on
new material facts when it imposed Hites’ sentence without allowing Hites an
adequate opportunity to respond to the new material facts.
{¶22} The record demonstrates that immediately after the statement of the
victim’s parents was read, the trial court gave Hites’ an opportunity to respond to
-14-
Case No. 6-11-07
the statement prior to imposing her sentence. At this time, Hites admitted to
sexually abusing the victim, but denied physically abusing the victim in the
manner alleged in the statement. Moreover, there is no indication in the record
that the trial court took these allegations of physical abuse into consideration when
rendering Hites’ sentence. Rather, as previously discussed, the trial court
specifically stated the relevant facts it relied upon in imposing Hites’ sentence,
which pertained to Hites’ repeated and systematic sexual abuse of the victim and
not the additional allegations of physical abuse. Accordingly, we do not find that
the trial court committed any prejudicial error to the defendant on this basis.
Hites’ second assignment of error is overruled.
Third Assignment of Error
{¶23} In her third assignment of error, Hites alleges that the trial court
relied on unconstitutional provisions of the felony sentencing statutes when it
imposed her sentence. Hites bases her argument on the decision of the Supreme
Court of Ohio in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, in which the
Supreme Court severed and declared unconstitutional portions of the felony
sentencing statute in effect at that time. However, we note that the Supreme Court
in State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-6320 has since acknowledged that
the severed portions of the felony sentencing statute would be considered
constitutional under the decision of the United States Supreme Court of Oregon v.
-15-
Case No. 6-11-07
Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) and concluded that given the holding and reasoning of
the United States Supreme Court in Ice, “the General Assembly is no longer
constrained by Foster’s holdings regarding the constitutionality of the
consecutive-sentencing provisions invalidated in Foster and may, if it chooses to
do so, respond with enactment of a statutory provision in light of Ice’s holding.”
Hodge at ¶ 6. The General Assembly recently addressed this precise issue and
superseded the Supreme Court of Ohio’s holding in Foster by enacting the recent
revisions to the felony sentencing statute in H.B. 86. Accordingly, Hites’ reliance
on Foster is obsolete and her arguments on this point have no merit. Hites’ third
assignment of error is overruled.
{¶24} For all these reasons, the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/jlr
-16-