Court Opinion

ID: 9960808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 13:09:31.891863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:54.382614
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Weaver, 2024-Ohio-1444.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                   FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                             HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 STATE OF OHIO,                                       :   APPEAL NO. C-230521
                                                          TRIAL NO. B-1703089
      Plaintiff-Appellee,                             :
                                                             O P I N I O N.
   vs.                                                :

 DEAN WEAVER,                                         :

      Defendant-Appellant.                            :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 17, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and John D. Hill, Jr.,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Bryan R. Perkins, for Defendant-Appellant.
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

KINSLEY, Judge.

        {¶1}    Defendant-appellant Dean Weaver appeals the judgment of the

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to an aggregate prison term

of 14 years following his guilty pleas to rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02 and gross

sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05. The trial court imposed Weaver’s

sentence consecutively to a separate 192-month sentence he is presently serving for an

unrelated federal conviction. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment

of the trial court.

                      Factual and Procedural Background

        {¶2}    In 2013, Weaver was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(“FBI”) on child pornography charges. He was ultimately convicted and sentenced to

192 months in federal prison.

        {¶3}    During the FBI’s investigation, Weaver consented to a polygraph test,

during which he admitted to offenses that took place in Hamilton County, Ohio, in

2004. On June 8, 2017, while serving his federal sentence in Texas, Weaver was

indicted in Hamilton County for three counts of rape and three counts of gross sexual

imposition involving a minor who was between the ages of 11 and 12 when the acts

took place.

        {¶4}    On November 28, 2018, Weaver submitted a motion for a speedy trial

pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”) and for the appointment

of counsel. For unknown reasons, the motion was not filed in Hamilton County until

May 1, 2019. Also, for reasons unknown, Weaver was not transferred to Hamilton

County to be served with the Hamilton County indictment until November 24, 2020.

                                              2
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶5}    On November 16, 2021, Weaver withdrew his not guilty pleas and

entered written guilty pleas to two counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual

imposition. The matter was continued for a sentencing hearing, but on April 4, 2022,

the trial court judge recused herself, and the case was reassigned to another judge.

       {¶6}    On June 13, 2022, Weaver filed a motion to suppress the statements he

made during the FBI polygraph test. A hearing on the motion was held in November

2022, and the motion was ultimately denied.

       {¶7}    On May 16, 2023, Weaver’s original guilty pleas were set aside. But on

August 1, 2023, Weaver again withdrew his not guilty pleas and entered pleas of guilty

to one count of rape, a felony of the first degree, and one count of gross sexual

imposition, a felony of the third degree. As part of the plea agreement, the state

dismissed the remaining four counts. During the hearing, the trial court conducted a

plea colloquy and accepted his pleas of guilty.

       {¶8}    On September 12, 2023, the trial court held a sentencing hearing.

Weaver’s sister and niece addressed the court and explained the trauma Weaver had

endured during his own childhood. Weaver also addressed the court, taking

responsibility for his actions.

       {¶9}    The state sought the maximum sentence of 16 years, citing, among other

justifications, the extreme trauma experienced by the victim as a result of Weaver’s

actions. The state emphasized that the victim experienced both suicidal ideation and

a complete inability to maintain intimate relationships as a result of Weaver’s abuse.

The state also disclosed that Weaver had assaulted an additional victim who had not

yet been identified.

                                                  3
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶10} The trial court sentenced Weaver to an aggregate term of 14 years in

prison. It imposed sentences of ten years on the rape count and four years on the

gross-sexual-imposition count, to be run consecutively to one another and

consecutively to Weaver’s 192-month federal prison sentence.            The trial court

explained that it was sentencing Weaver to the 14 years because of the serious nature

of the crimes, the moderate possibility of recidivism, and the severe impact of his

actions on the victim. The trial court also emphasized Weaver’s deplorable behavior

towards his victim, including withholding food from the victim to coerce him into

various sexual acts. The trial court also considered Weaver’s own history of abuse, but

explained that he could have sought help for his issues rather than abusing children or

accessing child pornography. The trial court gave Weaver credit for 1,023 days in

custody, classified him as a Tier III sex offender, and imposed five years of postrelease

control.

       {¶11} Weaver now appeals.

                                       Analysis

       {¶12} Weaver raises two assignments of error on appeal. First, Weaver argues

that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss his indictment because, he alleges, his

speedy-trial rights were violated under the IAD. Second, Weaver argues that the trial

court erred to his prejudice by imposing consecutive sentences.

                                    Speedy Trial

       {¶13} In his first assignment of error, Weaver argues that the trial court erred

by failing to dismiss his indictment when the state did not bring him to trial within the

time mandated by the IAD. The state argues that Weaver waived this argument by

failing to advance it below and by entering guilty pleas.

                                               4
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶14} R.C. 2963.30 governs the IAD. Weaver asks this court to interpret this

statute; therefore, our review is de novo. Dubose v. McCloud, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.

C-190690, 2020-Ohio-4972, ¶ 12 (“Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Whether a

trial court applied the proper legal standard poses a question of law, which is reviewed

de novo.”).

       {¶15} Pursuant to R.C. 2963.30, Article III(a),

       the prisoner * * * shall be brought to trial within one hundred eighty

       days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer

       and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer’s jurisdiction

       written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a

       final disposition to be made of the indictment[.]

       {¶16} Weaver asserts that he requested a speedy trial on November 28, 2018,

but was not actually brought to Hamilton County to stand trial until November 24,

2020. Therefore, he contends, the statutory timeframe to bring him to trial under R.C.

2963.30 had expired.

       {¶17} Weaver’s assignment of error fails for two reasons. First, he failed to

advance this argument below and therefore did not preserve it for our review. Weaver

never argued to the trial court that his speedy-trial rights were violated, and in fact his

attorney waived speedy-trial time on several occasions on his behalf. It is well-settled

that speedy-trial issues not raised in the trial court will not be heard for the first time on

appeal. See State v. Turner, 168 Ohio App.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-3786, 858 N.E.2d 1249,

¶ 21 (5th Dist.).

       {¶18} Second, Weaver waived his speedy-trial rights under the IAD by

entering guilty pleas. During the plea colloquy, the trial court outlined Weaver’s

                                                  5
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

constitutional rights, including his right to a speedy trial, and explained to Weaver that

he was waiving those rights by pleading guilty. When asked if he understood, Weaver

answered in the affirmative, and the trial court accepted his pleas as knowing,

intelligent, and voluntary.

       {¶19} The entry of a guilty plea waives all constitutional violations that may

have existed prior to the plea and that are unrelated to the entry of the guilty plea itself

or to the jurisdiction of the court. See State v. Bateman, 4th Dist. Jackson No. 19CA13,

2021-Ohio-57, ¶ 9. This includes the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Id. Thus,

by pleading guilty, Weaver waived any constitutional right to a speedy trial that he may

have asserted under the IAD.

       {¶20} Because Weaver waived his right to assert on appeal his speedy-trial

rights, both by failing to raise the issue in the trial court and by entering guilty pleas,

Weaver’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                              Consecutive Sentencing

       {¶21} In his second assignment of error, Weaver argues that the trial court

erred in imposing consecutive sentences, both by imposing the Hamilton County

sentences consecutively to one another and by requiring Weaver to serve his Hamilton

County aggregate sentence consecutively to his federal sentence. He contends that

consecutive sentences are disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and the

danger posed to the public. He further contends that mitigating circumstances,

including his remorse, his traumatic childhood, his injury in the military, and old age

at the time of his eventual release, undercut the need for consecutive prison terms. In

making these arguments, Weaver concedes that the trial court made the necessary

                                                 6
                        OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

findings to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.17(C)(4), but contends

these findings are not supported by the record.

         {¶22} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) governs our review of challenges to consecutive

sentences in felony-sentencing appeals. Under that statute, we may only reverse a trial

court’s imposition of consecutive sentences if we find that the record does not clearly

and convincingly support the trial court’s decision to sentence the defendant to

consecutive prison terms. See State v. Gwynne, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3851, ¶

13-14.

         {¶23} Here, the trial court made specific findings as to why the sentences were

proper for the crimes, including the need to protect the public and the seriousness of

the offenses.    The trial court properly considered Weaver’s history and balanced it

with the impact on the victim. The trial court also accounted for the fact that there

was another unidentified victim that Weaver had admitted to sexually abusing. These

findings were clearly and convincingly supported by the evidence in the record.

Therefore, Weaver’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                                        Conclusion

         {¶24} For the reasons set forth above, we overrule Weaver’s assignments of

error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                        Judgment affirmed.

BOCK, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.

Please note:
         The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                                   7