Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. May

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain

July 30, 2018

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
GARY L. MAY Appellant

          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 17CR095607

          APPEARANCES: GIOVANNA V. BREMKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

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

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          THOMAS A. TEODOSIO JUDGE

         {¶1} Appellant, Gary L. May, appeals from his convictions in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} Mr. May was indicted on twelve counts of rape and twelve counts of sexual battery involving two young girls whom his wife was babysitting. Prior to trial, the State amended two counts of rape to gross sexual imposition and dismissed two counts of sexual battery. After a jury trial, Mr. May was found guilty of ten counts of rape, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and ten counts of sexual battery. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate total of life in prison with parole eligibility after fifteen years and found him to be a sexually-oriented offender.

         {¶3} Mr. May now appeals from his convictions and raises one assignment of error for this Court's review.

         II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANT, GARY L. MAY, BY FAILING TO MERGE ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT.

         {¶4} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. May argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him on two counts of rape, specifically Counts 11 and 12, as they were allied offenses of similar import. We disagree.

         {¶5} "This Court generally applies a de novo standard of review when reviewing a trial court's decision regarding the merger of convictions for the purposes of sentencing." State v. Harris, 9th Dist. Medina No. 16CA0054-M, 2017-Ohio-8263, ¶ 25, citing State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482, 2012-Ohio-5699, ¶ 1. "When applying the de novo standard of review, this Court gives no deference to the trial court's legal determinations." State v. West, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 04CA008554, 2005-Ohio-990, ¶ 33.

         {¶6} "R.C. 2941.25 codifies the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and [Article I, Section 10, ] of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense." State v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.