[Cite as State v. Wooten, 2014-Ohio-3980.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF LORAIN ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

ALLEN F. WOOTEN 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 13CA010510 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO 

CASE No. 13CR087517 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: September 15, 2014 

 

WHITMORE, Judge. 

{¶1} Defendant, Allen Wooten, appeals from his convictions in the Lorain County 

Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms. 

I 

{¶2} From January 2011 to September 2011, Ashley Wilson lived in a Fulton Homes 

apartment in Lorain, Ohio. Wilson lived there with her five children, whose ages ranged from 13 

years old to a couple of months old. R.E., who is Wilson’s second oldest, would often watch the 

younger children while Wilson took her oldest child to school. Wilson would typically be gone 

between 15 and 30 minutes. 

{¶3} On November 29, 2012, just over a year after moving, R.E. told her mother that 

she had been raped while they lived in Fulton Homes. R.E. told her mother that Wooten, a 

maintenance man at the apartment complex, had raped her one day when Wilson had taken the 

oldest child to school. According to R.E., Wooten had come to repair something upstairs after 
2 

 

Wilson had left. R.E. let him in and went to her bedroom with two of her younger siblings. R.E. 

testified that Wooten then entered her room, told the two younger children to leave, and raped 

her, both orally and vaginally. R.E. said Wooten then left without making any repairs to the 

house. Wilson returned shortly thereafter, but R.E. did not tell her what had happened. R.E. 

explained that she did not tell anyone that she had been raped until November 2012 because 

Wooten had threatened to hurt anyone that she told. R.E. said that, after the rape, she saw 

Wooten around the apartment complex four or five times a week, up until they moved in 

September 2011. 

{¶4} Wooten was indicted on two counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) 

and two counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), all felonies of the first degree. Each 

count contained an attendant sexually violent predator specification. A jury found Wooten guilty 

on the four counts of rape, and the court found Wooten guilty of the specifications. After 

merging the allied offenses, the court sentenced Wooten to life without the possibility of parole. 

Wooten now appeals and raises three assignments of error for our review. 

II 

Assignment of Error Number One

THE GUILTY VERDICTS FOR RAPE ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF MR. WOOTEN’S RIGHTS 

UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE 

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE 

OHIO STATE CONSTITUTION. 

{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Wooten argues that his convictions for rape are 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. 

In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, an appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the evidence 

and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine 

whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way 
3 

 

and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be 

reversed and a new trial ordered.

State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). “Weight of the evidence concerns ‘the 

inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of 

the issue rather than the other.’” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 

(1997), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1594 (6th Ed.1990). “When a court of appeals reverses 

a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the 

appellate court sits as a ‘thirteenth juror’ and disagrees with the fact[-]finder’s resolution of the 

conflicting testimony.” Thompkins at 387, quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 (1982). An 

appellate court should exercise the power to reverse a judgment as against the manifest weight of 

the evidence only in exceptional cases. Otten at 340. 

{¶6} R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) provides that “[n]o person shall engage in sexual conduct 

with another who is not the spouse of the offender * * * when * * * [t]he other person is less than 

thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.” “Sexual 

conduct” is defined as any “vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, 

fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the 

insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object 

into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete 

vaginal or anal intercourse.” R.C. 2907.01(A). 

{¶7} R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) states that “[n]o person shall engage in sexual conduct with 

another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of 

force.” “A person acts purposely when it is his specific intention to cause a certain result, or, 

when the gist of the offense is a prohibition against conduct of a certain nature, regardless of 
4 

 

what the offender intends to accomplish thereby, it is his specific intention to engage in conduct 

of that nature.” R.C. 2901.22(A). 

{¶8} Wooten argues that his convictions for rape are against the manifest weight of the 

evidence because: (1) the chances of Wooten committing the assault within the short period of 

time that R.E.’s mother was gone are “remote”; (2) two employees of Fulton Homes testified that 

Wooten was not alone in the apartment to make repairs to the sink and ceiling; and (3) R.E. 

waited over a year to report the incident. 

R.E.

{¶9} R.E. testified that, in 2011, she was 11 years old and lived in an apartment in 

Fulton Homes with her mother and her four siblings; R.E. is the second oldest. R.E. said she 

would often watch her younger siblings while her mother took her older sister to school. R.E. 

stated that the trip usually took her mother 14 or 15 minutes, unless she had to stop at the store. 

If her mother stopped at the store, R.E. estimated that she would be gone about 30 minutes. 

{¶10} R.E. explained that one day her mother left to take her sister to school and told her 

to let Wooten in “to fix something in the house upstairs.” R.E. testified that about five minutes 

after her mother left, Wooten knocked on the door and she let him in. She said Wooten walked 

upstairs and into the bathroom. R.E. then went into her bedroom with her two younger siblings, 

who were three and four years old at the time. The youngest, she explained, was still an infant 

and was in her mother’s room. 

{¶11} According to R.E., Wooten then entered R.E.’s bedroom and told her two siblings 

to get out. When they left, he closed R.E.’s bedroom door and approached her as she was sitting 

on the edge of her bed. R.E. testified that Wooten pulled his pants down and told her to “suck on 

his private part.” R.E. initially said no, but, ultimately, did as she was told because she thought 
5 

 

Wooten looked like he was going to hit her. R.E. said that while his penis was in her mouth, 

Wooten moved back and forth at least ten times. He then withdrew his penis, pushed her back 

onto her bed, removed her pants, and vaginally raped her with his penis. R.E. testified that she 

told Wooten that “it hurt.” R.E. said Wooten eventually stopped, got up, put his pants back on, 

and told her not to tell anyone or they would get hurt. According to R.E., Wooten then left 

without repairing anything in the house. R.E. estimated that Wooten was in the house about 15 

to 20 minutes. 

{¶12} R.E. said her mother returned home about five minutes after Wooten left, but she 

did not tell her what happened. R.E. explained that she did not tell her mother because she was 

scared that he would hurt them. R.E. said that she saw Wooten four or five times a week after 

the rape, until they moved out of Fulton Homes in September 2011. R.E. testified that she 

finally told her mother about the rape on November 29, 2012, after her mother warned her of the 

dangers of communicating with strangers online. 

Ashley Wilson

{¶13} Ashley Wilson, R.E.’s mother, testified that in November 2012 she was checking 

R.E.’s Facebook account and noticed friend requests from people out of state. Wilson warned 

R.E. not to communicate with strangers online because “that is how kids get hurt.” According to 

Wilson, R.E. then began sobbing. After approximately 15 minutes of crying, R.E. told Wilson 

that Wooten had raped her when they lived at Fulton Homes. According to Wilson, R.E. was 

“hysterical” when she was telling her that she had been raped because she was scared that 

Wooten would hurt them. Wilson immediately called the police. 

{¶14} Wilson explained that she lived with her five children at Fulton Homes from 

January 2011 to September 2011. During that time, her children’s ages were approximately 13, 
6 

 

11, 4, 2, and a newborn born in April 2011. Wilson said that R.E. is her second oldest child and 

would often watch the younger children when Wilson took her oldest child to school. Wilson 

testified that she would usually tell her neighbor, Yolanda, that she was leaving so Yolanda 

could keep a watch on the house. Wilson said that the trip to and from school took 

approximately 14 minutes, unless she had to make a stop. On the days when she stopped at the 

store or for gas, she estimated that she would be gone for 30 minutes. 

{¶15} Wilson testified that she knew Wooten because he was a maintenance man at 

Fulton Homes and had been in her apartment several times to perform maintenance. Wilson said 

she also knew Wooten because he dated her neighbor, Yolanda. According to Wilson, every 

time Wooten had come to her apartment to do repairs he had come alone because the repairs 

needed were “nothing major.” 

Sara Griffith

{¶16} Sara Griffith, a sexual assault nurse with the NORD Center, conducted an exam 

of R.E. As part of her exam, Griffith testified that she interviewed R.E. and Wilson to get a 

medical history. Griffith then conducted a full physical examination of R.E. However, because 

the assault had happened at least a year prior, Griffith said that she was not looking for any 

visible injuries related to the assault. 

{¶17} Griffith stated that during her examination she found “mounds and notches, which 

are abnormal growths * * *[,] an extension beyond the borders of the hymen.” Griffith explained 

that notches could be caused “by a lot of different things,” including a medical condition, injury, 

or some kind of birth defect. According to Griffith, a mound is usually caused by some kind of 

trauma, but it could be caused by a lot of things, including a long history of constipation, 

diarrhea, or masturbation. Neither R.E. nor Wilson reported R.E. as having a history of these 
7 

 

issues during their interviews with Griffith. Griffith testified that she did not observe any 

injuries on R.E. which she could “definitively” say were caused by a sexual assault. However, 

according to Griffith, the abnormalities she observed could be consistent with penetration. 

Jerry Ledbetter

{¶18} Jerry Ledbetter is the president of the board of trustees for Fulton Homes. As part 

of his duties, Ledbetter is in charge of operations, including maintenance of the units. Ledbetter 

testified that Fulton Homes employs two maintenance workers, Raymond Tate and Norman 

Huff. Additionally, it had hired Wooten as an outside contractor to perform repairs three days a 

week. Ledbetter testified that in 2011 Wooten was living at Fulton Homes and, while he might 

have also lived elsewhere, Ledbetter always contacted Wooten at Fulton Homes. According to 

Ledbetter, Wooten is an extremely knowledgeable repairman and supervised Tate and Huff 

because of his advanced skills. 

{¶19} Ledbetter explained that in 2011 there were no official work orders and that the 

office would not have a record of any minor repairs done at that time. Ledbetter stated that the 

maintenance workers could work a job alone or together, depending on the extent of the repair 

job, and that any one of the three maintenance workers could have been in Wilson’s apartment 

alone. 

{¶20} Ledbetter testified that when the police asked him about a sink repair to Wilson’s 

unit, he could only remember a repair to her kitchen ceiling. Ledbetter said that Wilson called to 

say that her kitchen ceiling “was down” and he figured that it was the result of a bathtub 

overflowing. According to Ledbetter, he sent Huff in to repair the ceiling, but Huff did not do a 

satisfactory job so he sent Wooten and Tate to do the repair. Ledbetter admitted that there were 
8 

 

several repairs made to Wilson’s home during her tenancy, but that he could not remember what 

those repairs were. 

{¶21} Ledbetter described Wilson was a “terrible tenant” and said that she left the house 

“trashed.” According to Ledbetter, Wilson was evicted for nonpayment of rent and currently 

owed Fulton Homes about $1,800. 

Raymond Tate

{¶22} Raymond Tate is a maintenance employee of Fulton Homes. Tate testified that he 

often worked with Wooten and never saw him do anything inappropriate while in a tenant’s 

home. Tate remembered performing three repairs to Wilson’s home: a repair of a leak in her 

roof, a repair to her kitchen ceiling, and a repair to her kitchen sink. According to Tate, Wooten 

and Tate worked together on all three repairs. Tate testified that he only knew of Huff going into 

Wilson’s apartment alone to make repairs. He explained that Huff had attempted to repair her 

kitchen ceiling, but Wooten and Tate were later sent in to fix his repair job. 

{¶23} Tate testified that he did not always work with Wooten or Huff. Tate sometimes 

worked alone, depending on the repair job. While Tate admitted that he did not always know 

where Wooten was during the day, he said that usually he knew the location of at least one of the 

other maintenance workers because they always discussed their jobs for that day. According to 

Tate, Wooten was living in Elyria, but would sometimes stay down the street from Wilson with 

his “lady friend.” 

Conclusion

{¶24} Wooten argues that his convictions are against the manifest weight of the 

evidence because he was never in Wilson’s apartment without another maintenance person. 
9 

 

However, both Ledbetter and Tate admitted that the maintenance workers might perform a repair 

job alone. While Tate testified that he was not aware of Wooten ever being in Wilson’s 

apartment alone, Ledbetter testified that it was possible. 

{¶25} Wooten further argues that R.E. is not credible because she waited more than a 

year to report the rape and the window of opportunity for Wooten to commit the crime was too 

small. R.E. testified that she did not report the rape at the time because Wooten had threatened 

to hurt whomever she told and R.E. continued to see Wooten around the apartment complex four 

or five times a week. While the window of opportunity for Wooten to commit the crime was 

small, Wooten had the opportunity to observe Wilson’s schedule. Several witnesses testified that 

Wooten was living in Fulton Homes at the time, possibly even dating Wilson’s neighbor, 

Yolanda. Reviewing the entire record, we cannot conclude that the greater amount of credible 

evidence weighs against Wooten’s convictions. See Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387. 

{¶26} Wooten’s first assignment of error is overruled. 

Assignment of Error Number Two

THE GUILTY VERDICT FOR THE SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR 

SPECIFICATION IS AGAINST THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE IN 

VIOLATION OF MR. WOOTEN’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, 

AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO STATE 

CONSTITUTION. 

Assignment of Error Number Three

THE GUILTY VERDICT FOR THE SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR 

SPECIFICATION IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF MR. WOOTEN’S RIGHTS UNDER THE 

FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED 

STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO 

STATE CONSTITUTION. 
10 

 

{¶27} In his second and third assignments of error, Wooten argues that his sexually 

violent predator specification convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence and are 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. We disagree. 

{¶28} “‘[S]ufficiency’ is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to 

determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient to 

support the jury verdict as a matter of law.” Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386, quoting Black’s at 

1433. “In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy.” Thompkins at 386. When reviewing a 

conviction for sufficiency, evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution. 

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. The pertinent question 

is whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

{¶29} “Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of 

law.” Thompkins at 386, citing State v. Robinson, 162 Ohio St. 486 (1955). This Court, 

therefore, reviews questions of sufficiency de novo. State v. Salupo, 177 Ohio App.3d 354, 

2008-Ohio-3721, ¶ 4 (9th Dist.).

{¶30} A conviction that is supported by sufficient evidence may still be found to be 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 387. “Weight of the 

evidence concerns ‘the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, 

to support one side of the issue rather than the other.’” (Emphasis sic.) Thompkins at 387, 

quoting Black’s at 1594.

{¶31} A sexually violent predator is “a person who, on or after January 1, 1997, 

commits a sexually violent offense and is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually 

violent offenses.” R.C. 2971.01(H)(1). “Accordingly, R.C. 2971.01’s plain language 
11 

 

unambiguously requires that the three following factors exist before a defendant may be labeled 

as a sexually violent predator: (1) that on or after January 1, 1997; (2) he commits a sexually 

violent offense; and (3) it is likely that he will engage in at least one more sexually violent 

offense in the future.” State v. Hardges, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24175, 2008-Ohio-5567, ¶ 48. 

The statute lists “factors [that] may be considered as evidence tending to indicate that there is a 

likelihood that the person will engage in the future in one or more sexually violent offenses.” 

(Emphasis added.) See R.C. 2971.01(H)(2). Those factors include:

(a) The person has been convicted two or more times, in separate criminal actions, 

of a sexually oriented offense or a child-victim oriented offense. For purposes of 

this division, convictions that result from or are connected with the same act or 

result from offenses committed at the same time are one conviction, and a 

conviction set aside pursuant to law is not a conviction. 

(b) The person has a documented history from childhood, into the juvenile 

developmental years, that exhibits sexually deviant behavior. 

(c) Available information or evidence suggests that the person chronically 

commits offenses with a sexual motivation. 

(d) The person has committed one or more offenses in which the person has 

tortured or engaged in ritualistic acts with one or more victims. 

(e) The person has committed one or more offenses in which one or more victims 

were physically harmed to the degree that the particular victim’s life was in 

jeopardy. 

(f) Any other relevant evidence. 

R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(a)-(f). 

{¶32} Wooten argues that his sexually violent predator specification convictions are not 

supported by sufficient evidence because he does not meet the requirements of R.C. 

2971.01(H)(2)(a) – having been convicted two or more times of a sexually oriented offense. 

Specifically, Wooten argues that his charge of rape in this case could not be considered a 

conviction under R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(a). 
12 

 

{¶33} In support of his argument, Wooten cites to State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St.3d 106, 

2004-Ohio-6238. In Smith, the Court interpreted the former sexually violent predator 

specification statute. At that time, R.C. 2971.01(H)(1) defined a “‘sexually violent predator’ as 

‘a person who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to committing, on or after January 1, 

1997, a sexually violent offense and is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually 

violent offenses.’” Smith at ¶ 1, quoting former R.C. 2971.01(H)(1). The Court concluded that 

“only a conviction that existed prior to the indictment of the underlying offense [could] be used 

to support the specification.” Id. The Court reasoned that because the specification must be 

charged in the indictment, “the grand jury must consider whether the person under investigation 

is ‘a person who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to committing a sexually violent 

offense.’” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 18, quoting former R.C. 2971.01(H)(1). 

{¶34} In response to Smith, the General Assembly modified R.C. 2971.01(H)(1) to 

define a sexually violent predator as “a person who, on or after January 1, 1997, commits a 

sexually violent offense and is likely to engage in the future in one or more sexually violent 

offenses.” Thus, the statute no longer requires the defendant to have a prior sexually violent 

offense; it is enough that he or she is currently charged with having committed one. See State v. 

Ditzler, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 13CA010342, 2013-Ohio-4969, ¶ 5-10.

{¶35} Wooten does not appear to dispute that he could have been indicted with a 

sexually violent predator specification based on his current charges of rape. Instead, he argues 

that the court could not use his current charges under R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(a) as evidence of the 

likelihood that he will commit a future sexually violent offense. For the following reasons, we 

decline to extend the Court’s logic in Smith to the R.C. 2971.01(H)(2) factors. 
13 

 

{¶36} R.C. 2971.01(H)(1) and (H)(2) are fundamentally different. Unlike, R.C. 

2971.01(H)(1), R.C. 2971.01(H)(2) does not contain elements of the offense that must be proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, R.C. 2971.01(H)(2) merely contains factors that “may be 

considered as evidence tending to indicate that there is a likelihood that the person will engage 

in” a sexually violent offense in the future. (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2971.01(H)(2). Evidence as 

to the likelihood of the defendant committing a future offense is not considered until after he or 

she has been found guilty of the underlying offense. See R.C. 2971.02. See also State v. 

Harrod, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-990018, 1999 WL 797980, *3 (R.C. 2971.02 “anticipates that 

the determination of the specification will take place in a proceeding after the defendant has been 

found guilty of the underlying offense.”) Because the factors used to determine whether the 

defendant is likely to commit a future sexually violent offense only become applicable 

“[f]ollowing a verdict of guilty on the charge of the offense,” Smith is not applicable here. See

R.C. 2971.02. This determination, however, does not end our analysis. 

{¶37} R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(a) only applies if “[t]he person has been convicted two or 

more times, in separate criminal actions, of a sexually oriented or a child-victim oriented 

offense.” A conviction generally requires a finding of guilt and a sentence. See State v. 

Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319, 2010-Ohio-2, ¶ 12. See also Crim.R. 32(C). However, under 

certain limited circumstances a guilty finding alone is sufficient to constitute a conviction. See 

State ex rel. Watkins v. Fiorenzo, 71 Ohio St.3d 259, 260 (1994) (“R.C. 2921.41(C)(1) specifies 

permanent disqualification from, inter alia, any public office in this state if the public official is 

either ‘convicted of or pleads guilty to, theft in office.’ * * * [Therefore,] the General Assembly 

placed ‘convicted’ on equal footing with a guilty plea.”). 
14 

 

{¶38} In State v. Monteleone, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 10CA009751, 2010-Ohio-5064, this 

Court concluded that “to constitute a prior conviction under R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(c), a prior 

determination of guilt is what is contemplated by the statute and not a judgment of conviction.” 

Id. at ¶ 10. However, the statute at issue in Monteleone was applicable if the offender had 

previously “been convicted of or pleaded guilty to” previous violations. Id. at ¶ 8. R.C. 

2971.01(H)(2)(a) does not contain similar language. R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(a) states that the 

offender “has been convicted two or more times.” R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(a) does not allow for 

consideration of prior guilty pleas. Interpreting the plain language of the statute, we cannot 

conclude that the General Assembly intended a guilty finding alone to constitute a conviction 

under R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(a).1 

{¶39} While we conclude that R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(a) does not apply in this case, that is 

only one factor to be considered when determining whether Wooten is “likely to engage in the 

future in one or more sexually violent offenses.” See R.C. 2971.01(H)(2). “Critically, only one 

of the factors listed in R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(a)-(f) had to be shown for the trial court to find that 

[Wooten] is a sexually violent predator.” State v. Cartwright, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2012-03-

003, 2013-Ohio-2156, ¶ 27. 

{¶40} Wooten waived his right to a jury trial on the sexually violent predator 

specifications. After the jury found him guilty of rape, the court set the issue of specifications 

for a hearing. At that hearing, the State called two witnesses. Pam Moran, the office manager 

for the Lorain County Clerk of Courts, Criminal Division, testified that Wooten had a prior 

 

1

 We note that the Eighth District has held that a finding of guilt in the current case may be used 

in conjunction with a prior conviction to satisfy the R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(a). See State v. Brown, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98540, 2013-Ohio-1982, ¶ 29; State v. Harrison, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

86925, 2006-Ohio-4119, ¶ 14. 
15 

 

conviction for gross sexual imposition (“GSI”). According to Moran, Wooten was indicted for 

GSI in March 2011 and pleaded guilty to an amended indictment charge of GSI, in violation of 

R.C. 2907.05(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree, in February 2012. Moran said Wooten was 

sentenced to three years of community control in August 2012. 

{¶41} Detective Orlando Colon, of the Lorain County Police Department, testified that 

Wooten’s GSI conviction stemmed from an accusation that Wooten, on two separate occasions, 

had fondled the vagina and breasts of his live-in girlfriend’s nine-year-old daughter. According 

to Detective Colon, the victim and her mother lived in Fulton Homes. Wooten was indicted in 

March 2011. R.E. testified that she was raped by Wooten while living at Fulton Homes between 

April 2011 and September 2011. 

{¶42} Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, there is sufficient 

evidence to support a finding that Wooten is likely to commit a sexually violent offense in the 

future. In March 2011, Wooten was indicted for fondling the nine-year-old daughter of his livein girlfriend. Later in 2011, he raped R.E., who was eleven years old. Wooten escalated his 

action from fondling to oral and vaginal rape. Further, Wooten used his position as a 

maintenance man for Fulton Homes to gain access to R.E.’s home when her mother was not 

there. We conclude that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support Wooten’s 

convictions on his sexually violent predator specifications. See R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(f). 

{¶43} Wooten did not present any evidence at the hearing on the specifications. Instead, 

he focused his argument on why R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(a)-(e) did not apply. Because Wooten did 

not present any evidence to address the likelihood of him committing a similar offense in the 

future, there is nothing for us to weigh against the State’s evidence. Reviewing the evidence in 
16 

 

the record, we cannot conclude that Wooten’s sexually violent predator specification convictions 

are against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶44} Wooten’s second and third assignments of error are overruled. 

III 

{¶45} Wooten’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Lorain County 

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of 

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 BETH WHITMORE 

 FOR THE COURT 
17 

 

HENSAL, P. J. 

MOORE, J. 

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

PAUL A. GRIFFIN, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATASHA RUIZ GUERRIERI, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.