Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, John
C. Heinkel for appellee.
Lorraine McBride Search, for appellant
1} Appellant, Elijah Mincy, appeals his sentence in
the Butler County Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty
to rape and kidnapping.
2} Together with his codefendants, Rodney Gibson and
Roger Simpson, Mincy raped the victim, "B.H.,"
multiple times after a party at a nearby apartment. Gibson,
Simpson, and Mincy took turns raping the victim over the
course of an hour and a half. Specific to Mincy, he forced
the victim to engage in fellatio with him and digitally
penetrated the victim's vagina and anus.
3} B.H. went to the hospital after she was able to
leave the apartment, where she was diagnosed with multiple
vaginal and anal lacerations. She was administered numbing
medication to address her physical pain from the repeated
4} After the police investigation, Mincy was charged
with 23 counts, including rape, sexual battery, kidnapping,
complicity to rape, and complicity to sexual battery. Mincy
plead guilty to one count of rape and one count of
kidnapping, and the state dismissed the other charges.
5} The trial court ordered a
presentence-investigative report ("PSI") and later
sentenced Mincy to eight years after merging the convictions
for purposes of sentencing. Mincy now appeals the trial
court's decision, raising the following assignment of
6} THE SENTENCING RECORD FAILS TO SUPPORT THE EIGHT
YEAR SENTENCE WHICH THE TRIAL COURT GAVE APPELLANT.
7} Mincy argues in his assignment of error that the
trial court improperly sentenced him because the record does
not support the court's sentence.
8} An appellate court reviews the imposed sentence
according to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which governs all felony
sentences. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516,
2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1. Pursuant to that statute, an
appellate court does not review the sentencing court's
decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶
10. Rather, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides that an appellate
court can modify or vacate a sentence only if the appellate
court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record
does not support the trial court's findings under
relevant statutes or that the sentence is otherwise contrary
9} 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. Thus,
this court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a
sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the
sentence is either contrary to law or unsupported by the
record. Marcum at ¶ 7.
10} After reviewing the record, we find the trial
court's sentence is not contrary to law. Mincy pled
guilty to rape, a first-degree felony according to R.C.
2907.02(A)(2). According to R.C. 2929.14(A)(1), the proper
sentencing range for a felony of the first degree is three to
11 years. As such, Mincy's eight-year sentence is within
the relevant statutory range. The trial court also noted in
its sentencing entry and during the sentencing hearing that
it had considered the purposes and principles of sentencing
according to R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism