[Cite as State v. Folk, 2017-Ohio-8105.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 27375
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 16-CR-2193
:
AARON FOLK : (Criminal Appeal from
: Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 6th day of October, 2017.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ALICE B. PETERS, Atty. Reg. No. 0093945, Montgomery
County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, 301
West Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
THOMAS M. KOLLIN, Atty. Reg. No. 0066964, 3725 Pentagon Boulevard, Suite 270,
Beavercreek, Ohio 45431
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
HALL, P.J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Aaron Folk appeals from the sentence he received after pleading guilty to
one count of rape. Folk challenges the trial court’s decision to impose the maximum
allowable prison sentence for his offense. Finding that the sentence is not contrary to law
and that the record amply supports the trial court’s decision, we affirm.
I. Background
{¶ 2} Folk was indicted in July 2016 on one count of rape of a child under ten years
of age, a first-degree felony. Under a plea deal, Folk pleaded guilty to first-degree rape
by force or threat or force, charged in a bill of information that omitted that the victim was
under 10 years of age, and the State dismissed the indicted offense. The trial court
accepted Folk’s guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation. At the sentencing
hearing, the trial court imposed the maximum allowable prison sentence of 11 years.
{¶ 3} Folk appealed.
II. Analysis
{¶ 4} Folk’s sole assignment of error alleges that the trial court abused its
discretion by imposing the maximum sentence for a single count of rape.
{¶ 5} “This court no longer applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing
felony sentences, as the Supreme Court of Ohio has made clear that felony sentences
are to be reviewed in accordance with the standard set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).” State
v. McCoy, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2016-CA-28, 2016-Ohio-7415, ¶ 6, citing State v.
Marcum,146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 10, 16. Accord State v.
Rodeffer, 2013-Ohio-5759, 5 N.E.3d 1069, ¶ 29 (2d Dist.). Under the plain language of
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on
-3-
appeal only if it determines 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 to law.” Marcum at ¶ 1. “This is a very deferential standard of review, as the
question is not whether the trial court had clear and convincing evidence to support its
findings, but rather, whether we clearly and convincingly find that the record fails to
support the trial court’s findings.” State v. Cochran, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2016-CA-33, 2017-
Ohio-217, ¶ 7, citing Rodeffer at ¶ 31.
{¶ 6} Even before Marcum, we had indicated “[t]he trial court has full discretion to
impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required
to make any findings or give reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum
sentences.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Nelson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25026, 2012-
Ohio-5797, ¶ 62. Accord State v. Terrel, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2014-CA-24, 2015-Ohio-
4201, ¶ 14. But “in exercising its discretion, a trial court must consider the statutory
policies that apply to every felony offense, including those set out in R.C. 2929.11 and
R.C. 2929.12.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Castle, 2016-Ohio-4974, 67 N.E.3d 1283, ¶
26 (2d Dist.). It follows, then, that “ ‘a maximum sentence is not contrary to law when it is
within the statutory range and the trial court considered the statutory purposes and
principles of sentencing as well as the statutory seriousness and recidivism factors.’
” State v. Walden, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2014-CA-84, 2016-Ohio-47, ¶ 7, quoting State v.
Martin, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2014-CA-69, 2015-Ohio-697, ¶ 8.
{¶ 7} Here, the maximum 11-year prison sentence imposed by the trial court was
within the authorized statutory range. The court stated at the sentencing hearing that it
had considered “the purposes and principles of sentencing [in R.C. 2929.11] and the
-4-
seriousness and recidivism factors [in R.C. 2929.12].” (Tr. 37). Although the court did not
state the same in its termination entry, “[a] trial court is not required to state that it
considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.” State v. Neff, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2012-CA-
31, 2012-Ohio-6047, ¶ 5. Folk’s 11-year prison sentence, therefore, is not contrary to law.
{¶ 8} We may only vacate or modify Folk’s sentence, then, if we find by clear and
convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence. This is exactly what
Folk contends—that the record does not support imposing the maximum statutory term
for a single count of rape. We disagree.
{¶ 9} Folk’s pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report shows that he has previously
been convicted of sex crimes against young children and has been designated a Tier II
sex offender. In 2007, Folk was convicted of gross sexual imposition for vaginally
penetrating his then-girlfriend’s fourteen-year-old daughter. A rape charge was
dismissed. And he was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor for fondling the
vagina of the girlfriend’s eight-year-old daughter. In 2010, Folk was again convicted of
gross sexual imposition, for fondling the vagina of another girlfriend’s fourteen-year-old
daughter while she slept.
{¶ 10} In the present case, Folk was convicted of rape for anally penetrating his
girlfriend’s nine-year-old daughter while she slept. And he threatened the girl by telling
her that he would kill her if she told anyone. At sentencing, the trial judge noted the
similarity between this crime and the previous crimes: “You take advantage of the child
of a girlfriend. Their ages in each of the three cases were between the ages of eight and
fourteen, and it’s a modus operandi that is beyond alarming.” (Tr. 36). The PSI states that
according to Folk’s parole officer Folk has been noncompliant while on post-release
-5-
control for his prior crimes. The parole officer said that “Folk has been sanctioned so
many times that he no longer had prison time looming over him.” According to the parole
officer, Folk has violated a temporary protection order, been involved in domestic
violence, had prohibited contact with individuals under the age of 18, and tested positive
for cocaine approximately seven times. The parole officer also reported that Folk has
failed to complete sex-offender treatment. It was the parole officer’s opinion that Folk “is
not amenable to supervision” and that “he will continue to sexually assault children.”
{¶ 11} Folk’s maximum sentence represents more than just a single, isolated
crime. We believe the record amply supports that sentence. Accordingly, we simply do
not conclude clearly and convincingly that the record fails to support the trial court’s
findings.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 12} The sole assignment of error is overruled. The trial court’s judgment is
affirmed.
.............
DONOVAN, J. and TUCKER, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck
Alice B. Peters
Thomas M. Kollin
Hon. Mary Katherine Huffman