State v. Vinson

[Cite as State v. Vinson, 2013-Ohio-1844.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2012-09-179
: OPINION
- vs - 5/6/2013
:
GAYLON JAMIL VINSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2012-04-0581
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael A. Oster, Jr., Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee
Billy W. Guinigundo, 5331 South Gilmore Road, Fairfield, Ohio 45014, for defendant-
appellant
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Gaylon Vinson, appeals a decision of the Butler County
Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to ten years in prison after Vinson pled guilty to one
count of rape.
{¶ 2} In 1998, when he was 16 years old, Vinson pried open a basement window and
entered the victim's home. Vinson proceeded to the victim's bedroom where she lay asleep
Butler CA2012-09-179
with her two young children. Vinson held a knife to the victim's throat, put his hand over her
mouth, and threatened to kill the victim and her children if she did not cooperate. Vinson
then raped the victim while the victim's six-year-old daughter lay awake beside her. Vinson
ejaculated on the victim and her bed, and then wiped away the semen with his shirt. Vinson
then told the victim that if she reported the incident to police, he would return and harm her
and her children. Notwithstanding Vinson's threats, the victim reported the rape, and police
obtained a DNA sample. Police were unable to match the DNA sample, and the crime went
unsolved until 2012.
{¶ 3} In 2012, Vinson was suspected of sexually assaulting a woman in Columbus.
As part of the investigation, the Columbus Police Department obtained Vinson's DNA. The
DNA sample was matched to the 1998 rape, and Vinson was charged with rape by way of a
bill of information. Vinson pled guilty to one count of rape.
{¶ 4} The state and Vinson agreed that laws effective in 1998 would govern his case,
and the matter proceeded to a sexual offender classification and sentencing hearing. Before
the sentencing was complete, the trial court ordered a forensic psychological evaluation as
well as a presentence investigation report. During the hearing, the trial court heard from two
of Vinson's supporters, who offered statements in mitigation. The trial court also heard from
the victim and the victim's daughter. The trial court then found that Vinson committed the
worst form of the offense, and sentenced him to ten years in prison. Vinson now appeals his
sentence, raising the following assignment of error.
{¶ 5} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN IT
FOUND HE HAD COMMITTED THE WORST FORM [sic] THE OFFENSE.
{¶ 6} Vinson argues the trial court erred when it found Vinson had committed the
worst form of the offense because the trial court failed to give adequate consideration and
weight to the fact that Vinson was 16 years old at the time he committed the offense.
-2-
Butler CA2012-09-179
{¶ 7} In 1998, and at the time Vinson committed the rape, a trial court was permitted
to impose up to a ten-year sentence for a felony conviction of the first degree. R.C. 2929.14.
If the trial court imposed the maximum sentence, it was required to make a finding that the
offender committed the worst from of the offense, or that the offender posed the greatest
likelihood of committing future crimes, and support its reasoning for so finding. R.C.
2929.14(C).
{¶ 8} "When considering whether a defendant committed the 'worst form' of the
offense, the trial court is not required to compare the defendant's conduct to some
hypothetical, absolute worst form of the offense" because there is "no one worst form of an
offense." State v. Boshko, 139 Ohio App. 3d 827, 836 (12th Dist.2000). Instead, "the court
must consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a defendant has
committed the worst form of the offense." Id. When reviewing the seriousness of the
offender's conduct, the trial court was to be guided by R.C. 2929.12(B), which listed factors
for the trial court to consider. Including any "relevant" factor as listed in R.C. 2929.12(B), the
other R.C. 2929.12(B) factor applicable to this case is, "(2) the victim of the offense suffered
serious physical, psychological, or economic harm as a result of the offense."
{¶ 9} The trial court considered the facts of the offense, the applicable factors as set
forth in the statute, the presentence investigation report, the forensic psychological
evaluation, the victim's statement, the statement of the victim's daughter, and well as the
mitigation evidence submitted on behalf of Vinson before determining that Vinson committed
the worst from of the offense.
{¶ 10} The trial court first considered the facts of the case, including that Vinson broke
into the victim's home, held a knife to her throat and covered her mouth, and threatened the
victim's life and that of her children if she did not cooperate. The trial court considered the
fact that as the victim's six-year-old daughter lay awake next to her mother, Vinson raped the
-3-
Butler CA2012-09-179
victim, and then threatened to harm the victim and her children if the victim reported the
incident. The trial court also considered that Vinson tried to conceal his crime by using his
shirt to wipe his semen away, and that Vinson exited the victim's house and was not
apprehended until 2012.
{¶ 11} The trial court also considered the victim's own statement, as well as that of her
daughter, which demonstrated that the victim suffered serious psychological harm as result of
the rape. The statements from the victim and her daughter demonstrate the psychological
toll the rape took on the victim, including "her [not] being able to trust easily, her [not] feeling
safe at home," as well as robbing the victim of her "peace of mind." The victim reported that
she lived for over a decade with the crime unsolved, fearing that her perpetrator would return
to harm her or her children, or to rape her again.1
{¶ 12} The trial court also considered the fact that Vinson maintained throughout the
forensic psychological evaluation and presentence investigation process that he had not
raped the victim, and that instead, the victim was a friend of the family who had agreed to
engage in consensual sex with him. Vinson even maintained that because he was a juvenile
at the time of the sexual encounter, the victim should actually be the one "in trouble" for
engaging in a sexual act with a minor. The trial court also considered the fact that Vinson
expressed no remorse for his actions, instead stating that he did not remember the victim
because she was nothing that he "really needed to remember."
{¶ 13} Vinson argues that the trial court's finding failed to take into consideration or
failed to lend enough significance to the fact that he was 16 at the time of the offense.
However, the record clearly indicates that the trial court considered Vinson's age and
1. The victim made reference to the fact that one week after the rape, someone tried to break into her home
through the same window used by Vinson, and only abandoned the break-in upon realizing that she had several
people staying with her in her home.
-4-
Butler CA2012-09-179
balanced it with the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the statutory factors.
During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated
As I sit up here and I listen to the information that's been
presented * * * I do it being mindful that not every 16-year-old is
the same. I understand that. I understand being a 16-year-old
isn't the same as being a 30 year old. * * * So I have at least a
sense, I think, a relevant sense of the general mind set, attitude,
maturity level of kids that age. Being, of course, that every kid is
different, and I understand that. And I do have to take into
consideration that he was a juvenile * * *. The law recognizes
that someone that age doesn't have the same mental
development as an adult.
{¶ 14} The record indicates that the trial court clearly considered Vinson's age at the
time of the offense, as well as the fact that Vinson was much younger when he raped the
victim. The trial court also took into consideration that 16-year-olds do not have the same
mental development as an adult, and weighed that factor against the circumstances of
Vinson breaking into the victim's home, raping her in front of her children, and threatening to
kill her and her children. The trial court weighed Vinson's age at the time of the offense
against all the other circumstances of the crime and found that Vinson committed the worst
from of the offense, and we find no error in that conclusion.
{¶ 15} After thoroughly reviewing the record, the trial court's finding that Vinson
committed the worst form of the offense was not erroneous. Vinson's sole assignment of
error is therefore overruled.
{¶ 16} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.
-5-