Cases | 2007-Ohio-3878(Ohio Ct. App. 2007) | 2018
The defendant was convicted of attempted gross sexual imposition and gross sexual imposition after unspecified sexual contact with a minor. Following the sentencing hearing, the defendant appealed, claiming the sentence was improper in that it was based, in part, on testimony of the victim and victim’s advocate at the sentencing hearing. The defendant claimed such testimony contained prejudicial facts not found by a jury nor admitted to by the defendant. The appellate court found the sentencing hearing was held pursuant to Ohio law that allows for a victim’s statement, as well as testimony from anyone with information relevant to sentencing so the trial court properly allowed and considered victim testimony. The appellate court affirmed the sentence.