Youngstown Daily Legal News

17-year prison term affirmed for HIV-positive man who assaulted heroin addict

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 12, 2014

In an opinion released recently, the 8th District Court of Appeals affirmed a 17-year prison term for an HIV-positive man found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman and compelling prostitution.

Defendant Donald Reeves was indicted in February 2013 on 20 counts including rape, felonious assault, compelling prostitution, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, corrupting another with drugs and intimidation of a crime victim or witness. After originally pleading not guilty to the charges, Reeves ultimately pleaded guilty to counts of felonious assault, compelling prostitution, attempted corrupting another with drugs and attempted felonious assault.

The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas accepted his guilty pleas and the state nolled the remaining counts. Without a plea agreement, Reeves could have received up to 127 years incarceration. However, his plea agreement gave no recommended sentence and the trial court explained that he could still be subject to a maximum term of 17 years in prison.

At a sentencing hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the state, the victim, FBI Detective Joe DiGregorio, defense counsel and Reeves himself. Noting Reeves’ lengthy criminal history and recidivism factors and finding that his behavior was the worst form of the offense, the trial court imposed a maximum sentence on each count. It ordered those sentences to run consecutively for a total of 17 years.

In his appeal to the 8th District, Reeves first argued that he did not enter his guilty pleas knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently because at his sentencing he made a statement alluding to his innocence.

Specifically, he told the trial court that he did have sex with the victim twice and that they used condoms each time.

“I do it for 21 days and I thought she fully understood because she was giving me my HIV pills every morning, making sure that I took them that she had all of the opportunity to wear condoms,” he told the common pleas court.

Upon review, the three-judge appellate panel noted that Reeves did not move to withdraw his guilty plea at any point during his sentencing. Instead, he only raised the issue on appeal and asserted that the trial court was required to ask if he was denying guilt of the offense. The appellate judges disagreed with that sentiment.

The judges held that a trial court is permitted to assume that a defendant is admitting guilt when they enter a guilty plea.

“This court has repeatedly stated that a defendant’s protestations of innocence, however, are insufficient grounds for vacating a plea that was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered,” Judge Tim McCormack wrote on behalf of the appellate court.

After reviewing Reeves’ plea hearing, the judges ruled that the trial court properly explained the rights he was waiving and the implications of his guilty plea. They found that Reeves gave no indication of confusion or hesitation after hearing those warnings.

“Based upon the above, we find that Reeves did, in fact, knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently enter a guilty plea to the charge of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(B)(1), as well as the other three charges,” Judge McCormack wrote, overruling his first assignment of error.

Reeves next argued that the trial court based his sentence on improper information regarding the dismissed charges.

At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor emphasized that Reeves had preyed upon a vulnerable victim, who was a heroin addict, and treated her with intimidation, physical abuse, threats to her life and the lives of her family, drugs and locks on the bedroom doors.

She indicated that Reeves would have sex with the victim without consent whenever he became angry. She also submitted photographs of the victim’s alleged injuries.

DiGregorio advised the court that he got involved in the case because it started as a human trafficking investigation. He described Reeves’ behavior as a “nightmare situation” and “one of the worst crimes that I have seen against a human being.”

The victim also spoke to the court and said Reeves knew he was “HIV-positive when he continuously raped and performed oral sex on me without protection.” She said she was locked in Reeves’ room daily and described the physical abuse she endured. She concluded by stating that she feared Reeves.

Reeves counsel disputed many of the allegations and offered contradicting evidence. In his own defense, Reeves said he thought the victim fully understood his condition and denied threatening or harming the victim.

After review, the appellate judges found that the trial court properly considered Reeves’ criminal history and made the required seriousness and recidivism findings.

The trial court specifically noted the victim’s heroin addiction and age as well as Reeves failure to show remorse for his actions. It did not find any applicable mitigating factors and insisted that the maximum prison term was required to protect the public and properly punish Reeves.

The district court held that the trial court’s considerations were consistent with sentencing laws and ruled that the trial judge was entitled to consider the evidence presented during sentencing.

“Before imposing the sentence, the trial court must consider the information presented by such persons, along with the record and any PSI or victim impact statement,” Judge McCormack stated.

“When the defendant’s convictions result from a plea agreement, that agreement does not preclude the trial court’s consideration of the underlying facts of the case in determining the appropriate sentence to impose.”

Ruling that the trial court considered only proper information, the appellate judges rejected Reeves’ second and final assignment of error.

Presiding Judge Mary Eileen Kilbane and Judge Melody Steward concurred.

The case is cited State v. Reeves, 2014-Ohio-3497.

[Back]