[Cite as State v. Castle, 2016-Ohio-993.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HARDIN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 6-15-11
v.
DONALD CASTLE,
OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Hardin County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 20152049CRI
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: March 14, 2016
APPEARANCES:
F. Stephen Chamberlain for Appellant
Brian S. Decker for Appellee
Case No. 6-15-11
ROGERS, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Donald Castle, appeals the judgment of the
Court of Common Pleas of Hardin County convicting him of two counts of rape
and sentencing him to eight years in prison. On appeal, Castle argues that the trial
court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶2} On April 16, 2015, the Hardin County Grand Jury returned a nine-
count indictment against Castle charging him with two counts of rape in violation
of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), a felony of the first degree; four counts of rape in
violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), a felony of the first degree; one count of rape in
violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), a felony of the first degree; one count of gross
sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), a felony of the third degree;
and one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(5), a
felony of the fourth degree. Castle entered pleas of not guilty to all of the charges.
{¶3} As the result of plea negotiations, Castle changed his plea to guilty as
to counts one and three of the indictment. Specifically, Castle pleaded guilty to
one count of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), a felony of the first
degree, and one count of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), a felony of the
first degree. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts in the
indictment. The court accepted the plea of guilty to both counts. A sentencing
-2-
Case No. 6-15-11
hearing was held on September 2, 2015. The State was the first to speak regarding
the sentencing factors. The State highlighted the psychological harm of the
victim, Castle’s ex-wife, Castle’s position in the community as a probation officer
and how his position led to more opportunity for abuse, how Castle minimalized
his conduct, and lacked genuine remorse for his actions.
{¶4} After the State gave its arguments regarding the statutory sentencing
factors, the victim1 was permitted to speak before the court. She stated that Castle
had manipulated her from the beginning of their relationship, starting in 2009.
According to her, Castle told her that her dying husband had asked Castle to
protect her and her children.
{¶5} Prior to their marriage, Castle had sex with the victim while she was
sleeping, which was the alleged conduct in count one of the indictment. Castle
knew that the victim was using sleep medication due to a medical condition, which
rendered her unconscious. After Castle was confronted by the victim, she stated
that Castle had promised never to have sex with her again while she was asleep.
Trusting Castle, she decided to go through with their wedding. She continued,
“What was the word you started saying? You were going to be my protector. So I
went ahead with the wedding. What we really needed was protection from you.”
Sep. 2, 2015 Hrg., p. 10.
1
Although the original nine counts alleged four different victims, counts one and three pertained solely to
this particular victim.
-3-
Case No. 6-15-11
{¶6} The victim said that although she was relieved that he would not be
able to hurt anyone else, she was still afraid of the dark, was uncomfortable lying
in bed, and had a hard time trusting anyone, especially law enforcement officials.
Her son, one of the alleged victims associated with the other counts of the
indictment, continued to tell her stories about what Castle did to him as well. She
stated that she cannot stop blaming herself for bringing Castle into their lives.
{¶7} She described how scared and uncomfortable Castle made her feel
when known drug addicts, who were probationers under Castle, would come to
their home and were given money by Castle. When she brought up how
uncomfortable Castle’s actions made her feel, Castle would tell her, “You stick to
medical and I’ll stick to the law stuff, because you don’t understand law.” Id. at p.
14.
{¶8} The underlying facts to both counts of rape involved Castle having sex
with his ex-wife while she was unconscious due to sleep medication and without
her consent. The victim recalled what she used to ask Castle repeatedly almost
every morning. She said, “I kept asking you that December I was so sick,
December of ’13, how many mornings did I wake up and ask you if you raped me
through the night again? I don’t think I can count them [Castle.] I asked you
repeatedly, almost every day, multiple times in December, did you rape me again?
Did you rape me again?” Id. at p. 15-16. She explained that she was forced to
-4-
Case No. 6-15-11
leave her church because everyone there accused her of lying and supported
Castle, instead of his victims. She concluded by asking the court to impose the
maximum sentence allowed, 22 years in prison.
{¶9} Defense counsel was next to argue. Counsel argued that the victim
exaggerated the harm to her and that she was not actually brainwashed. He stated
that Castle had no prior record, adult or juvenile. Counsel pointed out that Castle
tested low on the issue of potential for recidivism. Counsel argued that Castle’s
position in the community showed how much of a benefit he brings to society.
{¶10} Castle decided to speak at the hearing and stated that he took full
responsibility for what he had done and that he was genuinely remorseful for his
actions.
{¶11} The trial court began its imposition of Castle’s sentence by stating
that it had considered the statutory factors and the overriding purposes and
principles of sentencing. As to count one, the court sentenced Castle to a three
year prison sentence and a $1,000 fine. As to count three, the court sentenced
Castle to a five year prison sentence and a $1,000 fine. Regarding count three, the
court noted that the offense occurred after Castle had married the victim.
Specifically, the court stated,
The Court sees this as a different situation. There has been evidence
before the Court that after the first [rape], the evidence that I have
here is that promises were made that this wouldn’t happen again.
After that date, the parties entered into the sanctity of the
-5-
Case No. 6-15-11
relationship of marriage, and even though the standards of marriage
are declining in the world around us, still the Court finds no
relationship that is more based upon trust in each other than that
intimate relationship of marriage, and I find that Mr. Castle has
violated that, the sanctity of marriage, and therefore the penalty for
the count three of the indictment is more serious because the Court
considers it to be a more serious offense under the circumstances.
Id. at p. 29-30.
{¶12} Next, the court considered whether Castle’s sentences would run
concurrently or consecutively. Initially, the court found that the first two
requirements were met to impose consecutive sentences. Specifically, that
consecutive sentences “are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to
punish the offender, and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the
seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger that the offender has posed
or continues to pose to the public.” Id. at p. 31. Therefore, to impose consecutive
sentences, the court had to find one of three factors. The court found that two of
the three factors were not met: (1) that the offenses were committed while Castle
was awaiting trial and (2) that Castle’s criminal history made it necessary to
impose consecutive sentences to protect the public. However, the court found that
the remaining factor was present – that “multiple offenses * * * were committed as
part of a course of conduct, and that the harm caused by the two or more offenses
was so great or so unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses
-6-
Case No. 6-15-11
committed would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.”
Id. at p. 32. The court continued,
The Court believes very seriously, once again, I’m drawing a
distinction between the first count having been committed before the
parties were married, and then the second count having been
committed, again, after they entered into that relationship, and I
believe that a single prison term would not address the unusual
nature of these two counts.
Id. Based on the court’s findings, the court ordered that the two sentences be
served consecutively. The court also ordered the fines be paid cumulatively, for a
total of $2,000. Castle was instructed by the court that he was to be classified as a
Tier III sex offender and was made aware of his registration requirements upon
release.
{¶13} The court memorialized its decision by entry on September 4, 2015.
In its entry, the court reiterated
that consecutive sentencing is necessary to protect the public from
future crime or to punish the offender, and that consecutive
sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the
offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the
public. The Court further finds that: At least at least [sic] two of the
multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of
conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple
offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison
term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses
of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s
conduct.
(Docket No. 43, p. 3). The same punishments were imposed.
-7-
Case No. 6-15-11
{¶14} Castle filed this timely appeal, presenting the following assignment
of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
THE TRIAL COURT BELOW COMMITTED ERROR,
PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENDANT IN RULING THAT
THE SENTENCES TO THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION BE IMPOSED AND
RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH EACH OTHER.
{¶15} In his sole assignment of error, Castle argues that the trial court erred
by imposing consecutive sentences. We disagree.
{¶16} “A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a
defendant’s showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is
unsupported by the record or otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Barrera, 3d
Dist. Putnam No. 12-12-01, 2012-Ohio-3196, ¶ 20. Clear and convincing
evidence is that “which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief
or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio
St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶17} “The revisions to the felony sentencing statutes under H.B. 86 now
require a trial court to make specific findings on the record, as set forth in R.C.
2929.14(C)(4), when imposing consecutive sentences.” State v. Noble, 3d Dist.
Logan No. 8-14-06, 2014-Ohio-5485, ¶ 12, citing State v. Hites, 3d Dist. Hardin
No. 6-11-07, 2012-Ohio-1892, ¶ 11. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states that
-8-
Case No. 6-15-11
If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions
of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the
prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive
service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to
punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not
disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to
the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also
finds any of the following:
***
At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one
or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of
the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no
single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any
of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the
offender’s conduct.
* * *.
If a court imposes consecutive sentences, Crim R. 32(A)(4) requires that it “must
state the required findings as part of the sentencing hearing, and by doing so it
affords notice to the offender and to defense counsel.” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio
St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 30. It is also preferred that the court includes its
statutory findings in the sentencing entry “because a court speaks through its
journal.” Noble at ¶ 13, citing Bonnell at ¶ 29, citing State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio
St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-1533, ¶ 47. However, the court need neither state its
reasoning to support its findings nor must it provide a “talismanic incantation” of
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Bonnell at ¶ 37.
-9-
Case No. 6-15-11
{¶18} On appeal, Castle does not argue that the trial court failed to make
the necessary findings to impose consecutive sentences. Rather, Castle argues that
“there is no evidence in the record to support that the harm to the victim was so
great or unusual that would provide a basis for the trial court to impose
consecutive sentences on [Castle.]” Appellant’s Brief, p. 10. Upon a review of
the record, we find that there were sufficient facts presented to support the court’s
findings.
{¶19} The victim discussed, at great lengths, the harm she suffered as a
result of the rapes. She talked about how Castle manipulated her mind from the
onset of their relationship. She claimed that she was an emotional wreck after the
death of her first husband and that Castle exploited this to get closer to her. After
the first time Castle raped her, the victim was given assurances by Castle that he
would never do it again. However, he broke that vow and continued to rape her
throughout their marriage. Although time had passed since she came forward with
the accusations, the victim explained that she still feared the dark, felt
uncomfortable lying in her own bed, and had serious trust issues, especially with
anyone in law enforcement. This leads to another unsettling fact.
{¶20} It also appears that Castle used his status, as a member of law
enforcement, as leverage against the victim. The victim stated that whenever she
questioned Castle’s actions he would tell her that she does not understand the law
-10-
Case No. 6-15-11
and that he was the law. She explained that this made her feel like her situation
was hopeless and that no one in the law enforcement community would help her.
{¶21} Further, not only did Castle cause great harm to the victim physically
and psychologically, he also harmed her status in her church. Members of her
church could not believe how Castle, someone held in such high esteem, could
possibly have done the terrible acts that he was accused of committing. As a
result, the victim was forced to leave the church. She explained that this was
especially painful because one of the last wishes of her deceased husband was to
remain at that church.
{¶22} In addition to the victim’s own statements suggesting how the harm
done was so great or unusual, the trial court also stated its reasoning for imposing
consecutive sentences. The court found Castle’s conduct unusual in the fact that
the first offense occurred before Castle and the victim were married; that after the
first rape occurred, Castle vowed never to do it again; and that the second offense
occurred after Castle and the victim were married. The court’s reasoning
surrounded the idea that marriage was the ultimate form of trust and that Castle
had broken that trust by raping the victim, his then wife, again.
{¶23} Castle argues that the court’s argument lacks any legal support for
finding that this makes the harm so great or unusual to impose consecutive
sentences. Assuming, arguendo, that Castle’s argument has merit, this fact does
-11-
Case No. 6-15-11
not warrant reversal.2 So long as the court’s findings are supported by the record,
the court’s imposition of consecutive sentences will not be found to be contrary to
law. See Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 at ¶ 29. As stated supra, the record supports a
finding that the harm to the victim was so great or unusual based on the victim’s
statement at the sentencing hearing. Moreover, the sentencing entry reflects the
court’s same findings. Thus, Castle has failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that his sentence is contrary to law.
{¶24} Accordingly, we overrule Castle’s sole assignment of error.
{¶25} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant, in the particulars
assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
PRESTON and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/jlr
2
This court is unaware of any precedent limiting our review of a trial court’s findings to impose
consecutive sentences to the reasons provided by the trial court. It is well established that a trial court need
not provide any reason at all to support its findings that the harm to the victim was so great or unusual. See
Noble, 2014-Ohio-5485 at ¶ 13, citing Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177 at ¶ 30. The standard is very clear. “* * *
[A]s long as the reviewing court can discern that the trial court engaged in the correct analysis and can
determine that the record contains evidence to support the findings, consecutive sentences should be
upheld.” Bonnell at ¶ 29.
-12-