Youngstown Daily Legal News

Lengthy prison term is upheld for man who raped 10-year-old

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

In a recently released opinion, the 12th District Court of Appeals affirmed a 10-years-to-life sentence for a man found guilty of raping a 10-year-old.

Following a two-day trial in the Brown County Court of Common Pleas, a jury found James Liso guilty of rape.

That charge stemmed from allegations that he forced a 10-year-old to perform oral sex on him.

The common pleas court then sentenced him to a straight 10-year prison term and Liso filed a lengthy appeal.

After review, the 12th District affirmed Liso’s conviction but remanded the case for resentencing.

Specifically, the appellate judges noted that under the Ohio Revised Code, a trial court is required to impose a sentence of 10 years to life in prison for offenders convicted of raping a child under 13 years old.

Prior to resentencing, Liso requested new counsel.

He argued that he had challenged the effectiveness of counsel’s assistance in his appeal and therefore required new representation. The trial court disagreed.

The trial judge explained that Liso’s attorney was one of the most experienced public defenders available and could best protect Liso’s interests because he was familiar with the case.

It then sentenced Liso to 10 years to life in prison and Liso again appealed to the 12th District.

“Initially, Liso argues the trial court erred by denying his request that new counsel be appointed to represent him during his resentencing hearing,” Judge Stephen Powell wrote for the court.

To justify his request, Liso was required to show that there was a conflict of interest, a breakdown in communication, or an irreconcilable conflict.

The appellate judges found that he did not show any of those things.

“Rather, Liso merely alleged that he was entitled to new counsel because he had previously raised an ineffective assistance claim against (counsel) as part of his direct appeal,” Judge Powell stated.

The appellate judges thoroughly reviewed the record and found no evidence that the trial court erred in denying Liso’s request.

Next, he argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s “excessive” sentence.

“However, pursuant to R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(a), the trial court was statutorily required to resentence Liso to at least the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years to life in prison due to his rape conviction under R.C. 29077.02(A)(1)(b),” Judge Powell wrote.

Finding that the trial court had no latitude in sentencing, the appellate judges rejected Liso’s contention.

In a final proposition of law, Liso argued that his counsel was ineffective during resentencing because he failed to provide sufficient mitigating evidence.

Again, the judges noted that the trial court was required to issue the sentence it did and ruled that any mitigating evidence would not have changed that requirement.

“Therefore, even if we were to find a deficiency in his counsel’s performance, which we do not, Liso cannot demonstrate any resulting prejudice therefrom. Liso’s arguments otherwise are without merit and overruled,” Judge Powell concluded.

Presiding Judge Robert Ringland and Judge Robin Piper joined Judge Powell in affirming the lower court’s ruling.

The case is cited State v. Liso, 2014-Ohio-3549.

[Back]