Woman’s conviction upheld on appeal

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

A Van Wert woman sentenced to prison, along with her husband, for the theft of a nephew’s identity has had her conviction confirmed by the Third Ohio District Court of Appeals.

Caroline Searles of Van Wert had appealed her conviction in Van Wert County Common Pleas Court on two counts of tampering with records, each a felony of the third degree; one count of complicity, a fifth-degree felony; and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, a felony of the first degree.

As part of a plea agreement, Searles also agreed to the forfeiture of her residence, while six counts of tampering with records were dismissed.

The charges arose from Searles and her husband’s using her nephew’s identity for various purposes for more than a decade. 

Following her conviction, Searles was sentenced in July 2019 to a total of nine years in prison, which she appealed on the grounds the trial court imposed a sentence that was contrary to law. Searles, through attorney Clayton J. Crates, argued that the trial court “failed to consider and properly weigh the appropriate statutes and failed to determine that she was not amenable to community control sanctions prior to passing sentence.

Searles noted in her appeal that the trial count had not complied with Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.13(D), which involves possible reasons to impose a community control sentence.

Assistant Van Wert County Prosecuting Attorney Kelly Rauch represented the state in the appellate process.

In his opinion, Judge John Willamowski noted that, for there to be any prejudice by the trial court, its sentence on the first-degree felony charge would have to be in error.

Judge Willamowski noted that, while a prison sentence is the presumed correct sentence for a first-degree felony, a trial court can impose a community control sentence if it feels that sentence is more appropriate. However, no findings are required to impose the prison term under state statutes.

Searles had argued that the trial court was in error because it did not properly consider the statutory factors and erred by determining that she was not amenable to community control.

Judge Willamowski noted that an appellate court can only modify or vacate a sentence if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentencing court’s decision.

“Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence’, but does not require the certainty of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’,” the judge wrote in his opinion.

In addition, Judge Willamowski wrote that, while a trial court must consider the purposes and principles of sentencing and statutory factors, as set forth in state law, a statement by a trial court that it has considered the statutory factors is sufficient to fulfill its legal obligations in that respect.

The appellate judge said a review of the trial record shows that the trial judge indicated at the sentencing hearing that he had reviewed the information in a presentence investigation (PSI), noting that the PSI showed that Searles lacked genuine remorse that she had used her position of trust to steal the identity of her nephew.

Judge Willamowski also said the PSI stated that “(a)lthough the offender does not have any recorded criminal history, she was involved in criminal acts for over 14 years. She obtained the personal information from the victim while he resided with her in 2005.”

The PSI then recommended Searles be sentenced to 36 months on each of the third-degree felonies and eight years on the first-degree felony offense. The presentence investigation also recommended that the first-degree felony offense run consecutively (in addition) to the sentences on the third-degree felonies, for a total of 11 years in prison.

At her sentencing, the trial judge sentenced her to 24 months in prison on each of the third-degree felony offenses, but ordered those sentences to run concurrent to a nine-year prison term on the first-degree felony charge, for a total prison term of nine years.

Judge Willamowski also noted that the victim in the case was developmentally disabled.

“In this case, the sentences imposed on all counts were within the statutory range of sentences,” the appellate judge stated in his opinion, while also noting that the record also indicates the trial judge did consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing and did consider sentencing factors in ORC 2929.12.

Judges Vernon Preston and William Zimmerman concurred in the decision.