State v. Miller

• Decision Date: 06 April 2023
• Docket Number: 111785
• Citation: 2023 Ohio 1141
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2023-Ohio-1141

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 111785

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

April 6, 2023

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-20-652565-A

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Megan Helton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for appellee.

Charles A Koenig, for appellant.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Robert Miller ("Miller") appeals from his convictions and sentence following a bifurcated trial. He raises the following assignments of error for review:

1. Miller's convictions for child endangering were not supported by sufficient evidence in violation of his rights under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution.

2. Miller's conviction for gross sexual imposition was not supported by the manifest weight of the evidence in violation of his rights under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution.

3. Miller was deprived of his constitutional rights to an impartial jury, a fair trial and due process in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution, as a consequence of the failure to sever the charges against him and allowing inadmissible prior acts evidence.

4. Miller was deprived of his constitutional rights to due process in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution, as a consequence of ineffective assistance of counsel.

5. Miller's rights under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Sections 9 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution were violated by the trial court imposing a sentence that was contrary to law and unsupported by the record and by imposing sentences disproportionate to those same or similarly situated as Miller.

{¶ 2} After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for resentencing on the allied offense of similar import.

I. Procedural and Factual History

{¶ 3} On December 28, 2020, Miller was named in a six-count indictment, charging him with rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), with a sexually violent predator specification (Count 1); gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), with a sexually violent predator specification (Count 2); gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), with a sexually-violent-predator specification (Count 3); endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(3) (Count 4); endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1), with a furthermore specification that "the violation resulted in serious physical harm" (Count 5); and rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) (Count 6). Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the indictment stemmed from allegations that Miller sexually assaulted his eldest daughter, R.M., born January 13, 1991. Counts 4 and 5 stemmed from allegations that Miller physically assaulted his youngest daughter, H.M., born June, 8, 1998. Finally, Count 6 stemmed from allegations that Miller sexually assaulted his sister-in-law, H.D.

{¶ 4} The matter proceeded to a bifurcated trial on June 1, 2022. Upon the agreement of the parties, the underlying offenses were tried to a jury and the sexually violent predator specifications were tried to the bench. Relevant to this appeal, the following facts were adduced at trial.

{¶ 5} Miller and his wife, Mary Miller ("Mary"), were married on June 3, 1989. They have four children together: R.M., H.M., Ra.M., and J.M. At trial, the state elicited substantial testimony regarding Miller's home life, including allegations that he perpetrated physical and sexual abuse against members of his family through fear, isolation, and manipulation.

{¶ 6} Miller's eldest daughter, R.M. testified that Miller was "extremely violent" and had "extreme anger control issues." (Tr. 129-130.) She explained that Miller was very strict and believed discipline was necessary to correct his children's misbehavior. Rather than grounding his children, Miller would "line [them] up and beat [them] until someone admitted to whatever it was he thought [they] did." (Tr. 122.) R.M. testified that Miller used various objects to facilitate his discipline, including wooden paddles, leather straps, hangers, and cords. R.M. opined that Miller's "spare the rod, spoil the child" philosophy of parenting was premised on "[his] interpretation of the Bible and what he thought was the correct way to do things." (Tr. 122.)

{¶ 7} R.M. testified that Miller also engaged in a pattern of sexual abuse that began when she was a child. R.M. was frequently isolated from her siblings and forced to sleep in Miller's bed at night when Mary was travelling for work. When R.M. was in elementary school, she awoke in the middle of the night to the feeling of Miller's bare hand touching her vagina. (Tr. 138.) RM. testified that she understood Miller's conduct was "really bad and wrong," so she would "pretend like [she] was sleeping until it was over." (Tr. 139.) R.M. stated that she never spoke to Miller about the inappropriate touching because she was "very confused" and "really scared." (Tr. 138.) RM. estimated that Miller touched her vagina on more than ten separate occasions. (Tr. 139.)

{¶ 8} In addition to the foregoing incidents, R.M. testified that one night she awoke to Miller performing cunnilingus on her. Thereafter, Miller took R.M.'s hand and placed it on his erect penis. (Tr. 139.) The following morning, Miller "made a facial gesture where he was sticking his tongue out and licking the air." (Tr. 144.) R.M. estimated that she was a seventh- or eighth-grade middle schooler when this incident took place.

{¶ 9} R.M. did not understand the significance of her father's conduct until she was much older. She first disclosed the sexual abuse to her mother when she was 17 years old. However, R.M. pleaded with Mary to not tell anyone about the abuse because R.M. "was really scared he would hurt [her] if it got out." (Tr. 147.) R.M. testified that Mary "didn't even seem to, like, react" to the disclosure. In the years that followed, R.M. told several other individuals about her sexual abuse, including her youngest sister, H.M., her childhood friend, her boyfriend, and her youth pastor. The rest of R.M.'s family learned of Miller's conduct during a family meeting held in 2015. Ultimately, however, R.M. did not report Miller's conduct to the police until November 2019.

{¶ 10} H.M. corroborated much of R.M.'s testimony regarding their father's anger and disciplinary practices, stating that his "beatings" and "verbal abuse" were premised on his strict religious practices. (Tr. 213.) When H.M. was 17-years old, Miller learned that she had lied about her whereabouts and had visited a boy without permission. When H.M. arrived home later that day, Miller "took her inside and pulled out an extension cord and beat [H.M.] again and again until [her] legs were so bruised and swollen that * * * for the rest of the month [she] couldn't wear shorts no matter how hot it was." (Tr. 214.) H.M. explained that the extension cord was approximately 6 to 12 feet long and that Miller "wrapped it up" and struck her repeatedly on her lower back, legs, and middle back. (Tr. 214.) H.M. testified that the incident "was painful" and "seemed like it went on forever." (Tr. 214.) When asked if she observed any additional injuries as a result of the incident, H.M. responded, "No. I guess just the embarrassment [of] thinking in was my fault having to cover the bruises no matter how hot the day was." (Tr. 215.)

{¶ 11} H.M. photographed her injuries and showed them to her older sister, R.M. Although H.M. was unable to recover the images for the purposes of trial, she expressed that the "picture of [her] legs all black and blue * * * was enough to have [R.M.] reach out to her and ask if [she] wanted to take legal action." (Tr. 215.) R.M. corroborated much of H.M.'s testimony, stating "[H.M.] was extremely upset" and shared "pictures of the bruises all the way down * * * her butt, her legs." (Tr. 151.)

{¶ 12} H.M. did not disclose the incident of abuse to the police until 2019. H.M. was reluctant to file a police report against Miller because she "wanted to move on with [her] life." (Tr. 218.) Years later, however, H.M. decided to cooperate with the investigation against Miller because "[he] proved he is still a threat to society." (Tr. 218-219.)

{¶ 13} Miller's middle daughter, Ra.M., reiterated much of the testimony of her sisters, RM. and H.M. She confirmed that Miller often forced her oldest sister, R.M., to sleep in his bed without any of the other children. She further testified that Miller was quick to anger and very strict. Ra.M. summarized Miller's manner of discipline as follows:

So discipline was whenever anything happened, usually it was, like, immediate, in the moment. Like, everybody would be laughing and having a good time and something would happen and all of a sudden the face of my dad would change and it would turn into him hitting us and screaming. Or if, like, he found something that was - he wanted to know who did it, he would line us up and pick up the nearest object, whether there was a board, a stick, a hanger, whatever it was that was the closest object and start hitting us with it until someone fessed up to doing it. So we would take turns with

...