Court Opinion

ID: 9368644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 15:06:56.840635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:09.456670
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Lopez-Cruz, 2023-Ohio-257.]

                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                            BUTLER COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                   :

        Appellee,                                 :         CASE NO. CA2022-07-068

                                                  :              OPINION
     - vs -                                                       1/30/2023
                                                  :

 MARCO LOPEZ-CRUZ,                                :

        Appellant.                                :

       CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                          Case No. CR2021-10-1299

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John C. Heinkel, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

The Law Office of Wendy R. Calaway, Co., LPA, and Wendy R. Calaway, for appellant.

        S. POWELL, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Marco Lopez-Cruz, appeals the decision of the Butler County Court

of Common Pleas sentencing him to the maximum 10-year prison term available after he

pled guilty to rape of a girl under the age of 13. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.

        {¶ 2} On October 20, 2021, the Butler County Grand Jury returned a seven-count
                                                                      Butler CA2022-07-068

indictment charging Lopez-Cruz with two counts of third-degree felony gross sexual

imposition, two counts of third-degree felony sexual battery, and three counts of first-degree

felony rape. Lopez-Cruz entered into a plea agreement with the state on May 19, 2022 and

thereafter pled guilty to the charge of rape set forth in count three of the indictment. The

indictment set forth the following facts underlying that charge:

              On or about February 16, 2005, through October 19, 2007, in
              Butler County, Ohio, Marco Lopez-Cruz did engage in sexual
              conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or
              who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart
              from the offender when the other person is less than thirteen
              years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the
              other person, which constitutes the offense of RAPE, a First
              Degree Felony, in violation of R.C. §2907.02(A)(1)(b), and
              against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.

The bill of particulars provided additional information that alleged this rape occurred in the

hallway of a residence located in Hamilton, Butler County, Ohio.

       {¶ 3} On June 30, 2022, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. During this

hearing, the trial court sentenced Lopez-Cruz to the maximum 10-year prison term available

for the rape offense to which Lopez-Cruz had pled guilty, less 295 days of jail-time credit.

The trial court also classified Lopez-Cruz a sexual predator and notified Lopez-Cruz that he

would be subject to a mandatory five-year postrelease control term upon his release from

prison. In issuing its sentencing decision, the trial court specifically stated that it had

"considered the purposes and principles of sentencing" under R.C. 2929.11 and "balanced

the recidivism and seriousness factors" found in R.C. 2929.12.

       {¶ 4} Lopez-Cruz now appeals the trial court's decision sentencing him to that

maximum 10-year prison term, raising the following single assignment of error for review.

       {¶ 5} THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND

VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL

PUNISHMENT.

                                             -2-
                                                                       Butler CA2022-07-068

       {¶ 6} In his single assignment of error, Lopez-Cruz argues it was error for the trial

court to sentence him to the maximum 10-year prison term available because "a sentence

of incarceration is not supported by the record." To support this claim, Lopez-Cruz argues

the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the standard of review set forth in R.C.

2953.08(G)(2) applies to the trial court's findings made under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

However, contrary to Lopez-Cruz's claim, the Ohio Supreme Court has actually held the

exact opposite. That is, "R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to conduct

an independent review of a trial court's sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.12 or its

adherence to the purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11." (Emphasis added.)

State v. Bryant, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 21.

       {¶ 7} The Ohio Supreme Court reached this decision upon finding nothing within

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) that would permit this court "to independently weigh the evidence in the

record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that

best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12." State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d

242, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42. This court must therefore decline Lopez-Cruz's invitation to

independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the

trial court. See State v. Orender, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-12-149, 2022-Ohio-2823, ¶

15. Accordingly, because there is nothing within R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) that permits this court

to conduct an independent review of a trial court's sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.12

or its adherence to the purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, Lopez-Cruz's

first argument lacks merit.

       {¶ 8} In so holding, we note that the trial court's decision to sentence Lopez-Cruz

to the maximum 10-year prison term available was not clearly and convincingly contrary to

law. This is because the trial court took into consideration all relevant statutory factors set

forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 prior to issuing its sentencing decision, properly notified

                                              -3-
                                                                                 Butler CA2022-07-068

Lopez-Cruz that he would be subject to a mandatory five-year postrelease control term

upon his release from prison, and sentenced Lopez-Cruz within the permissible statutory

range available for the first-degree felony rape offense to which he pled guilty. 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, 2016-Ohio-2890, ¶ 8.

        {¶ 9} Lopez-Cruz also argues the trial court's decision to sentence him to the

maximum possible 10-year prison term constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.1 It is

well established, however, that "[a] sentence that falls within statutory limitations is not

excessive and does not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual

punishment." State v. Lemmings, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2021-01-001, 2021-Ohio-3285,

¶ 28. Cruel and unusual punishments are instead "those that are so disproportionate to the

offense as to shock the moral sense of the community." State v. Bosman, 12th Dist. Butler

No. CA2001-05-101, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 85, *3-*4 (Jan. 14, 2002). A 10-year prison

sentence for the rape of a child under the age of 13 comes nowhere near what it would take

to shock the moral consciousness of the community.                    See State v. Murrell, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 24717, 2012-Ohio-2108, ¶ 33 (finding an indefinite sentence of 10 years

to life imprisonment for rape of child under 13 years did not constitute cruel and unusual

punishment).

        {¶ 10} The rape of a child is shocking, outrageous, abominable, and it has enduring

effects on the child, thus necessitating a penalty equivalent to its enormity.                    State v.

1. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[e]xcessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Article I, Section 9 of
the Ohio Constitution sets forth the same restriction against cruel and unusual punishments.
                                                    -4-
                                                                  Butler CA2022-07-068

Accorinti, 12th Dist. Butler Case Nos. CA2012-10-205 and CA2012-11-221, 2013-Ohio-

4429, ¶ 22 (finding "no evidence to even remotely suggest" that appellant's aggregate

sentence of 20 years to life imprisonment for raping a 12-year-old girl "would shock the

conscience of the community"). The trial court sentencing Lopez-Cruz to the maximum

possible 10-year prison term available does just that.    Therefore, given these well-

established principles, the trial court's decision to sentence Lopez-Cruz to the maximum

possible 10-year prison term does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Accordingly, Lopez-Cruz's second argument also lacks merit.

      {¶ 11} For the reasons outlined above, and finding no merit to either of the two

arguments raised by Lopez-Cruz herein, Lopez-Cruz's single assignment of error lacks

merit and is overruled.

      {¶ 12} Judgment affirmed.

      M. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.

                                          -5-