Thursday, May 26, 2005
The defendant's lawyer said his client should get a lighter sentence.
By MICHELE C. HLADIK
VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT
COLUMBUS -- Sexually violent predator specifications do not apply to a Wooster man convicted in 2002 of sex acts against an 11-year-old girl, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled.
The high court ruled that Richard Haven's "sexually violent predator specification conviction and sentence are vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing."
The high court's decision, released Wednesday, said the conviction and sentence based on the sexually violent predator specifications were inconsistent with previous high court rulings on similar previous cases.
In 2002, Haven was convicted of one count of gross sexual imposition, four counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance and one count of voyeurism, for encounters between Sept. 1, 2001, and May 16, 2002.
Haven reportedly videotaped the daughter of his then-girlfriend while she was taking baths and sleeping.
The videos reportedly also showed Haven fondling the girl while she slept.
The girl's mother discovered the videotapes and reported Haven to the police.
A misnomer
During sentencing, Haven's attorney argued his client should receive a lighter sentence because the acts were not violent in nature and were committed without the girl's knowledge.
Also, Haven did not have a prior violent sexual offense conviction, so the specifications for a longer sentence should not apply.
The specifications allowed for Haven to be sentenced to a maximum of life in prison.
According to information from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's online offender database, Haven is serving a maximum 10-year sentence in the Belmont Correctional Institution.
His case was appealed to the 9th District Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court's decision.
"We find that a defendant need not have a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense at the time of indictment in order for a sexually violent predator specification to attach under [Ohio Revised Code]," the appellate decision read. "A conviction on the underlying offense is enough."
The case was brought before the Ohio Supreme Court, which overruled the appellate court and sent the case back to the trial court for resentencing.