The Akron Legal News

Man who raped teen girls loses appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 19, 2014

A panel of judges in the 8th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which classified defendant Carl Nelson as a sexual predator.

In his appeal, Nelson argued that the trial court erred in classifying him as a sexual predator, the most severe classification, rather than the least severe, sexually oriented offender.

According to the factual and procedural history of the case, Nelson was convicted in 1987 of the kidnapping and rape of a 14-year-old girl, for which he received five 15-to-25-year prison sentences, to be served consecutively.

Nelson had prior convictions for rape and kidnapping from a 1978 case in which he pleaded guilty to offenses involving a 13-year-old girl.

In that case, he received two concurrent four-to-25-year prison sentences.

On Feb. 20, 2014, the state filed a motion asking the trial court to hold a sexual classification hearing.

An evaluation was conducted by the court psychiatric clinic and a report was generated indicating that Nelson presented a moderate-to-high risk of engaging in sexually oriented crimes in the future.

The next month, the trial court held a classification hearing where it heard arguments from the state and Nelson before issuing a finding.

Nelson was classified under the former Megan’s Law, also known as H.B. 180 or former R.C. 2950.09(B)(1).

Pursuant to a 2012 ruling of the Ohio Supreme Court, Megan’s Law governs classifications and reporting requirements for offenders whose crimes were committed prior to the recent enactment of the Adam Walsh Act.

In its findings at the hearing, the trial court stated that the evaluation raised “some interesting red flags” and discussed Nelson’s diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.

“This is of grave concern to the court,” the trial court stated. “(Nelson) has failed to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as demonstrated by arrests. He was deceitful after he left the area after he found out about the charges. He worked under an alias (and) disregarded the safety of others by engaging in aggressive sexual behavior as well as having juvenile issues.”

The trial court went on to note that the state met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Nelson should be classified as a sexual predator.

“There were two victims ... in unrelated cases, both were 14,” the trial court stated. “Use of force and threat of force, in particular in the second case, stuffing a rag in her mouth, tying her legs to the bedpost. There was an accomplice. There was a kidnapping. Further harm was threatened to the victim if she took it upon herself to report.”

Nelson maintained that he did not have an attraction to young girls but the court found his argument incredible and went on to impose the most severe sexual offender classification.

Nelson challenged that classification upon appeal.

“Certain factors are set forth in the statute that the trial court should consider when classifying an individual,” wrote Presiding Judge Frank Celebrezze on behalf of the court of appeals.

Some of the factors include the age and criminal record of the offender, the victim’s age, whether there were multiple victims, whether drugs or alcohol were used to impair the victim and whether the offender has taken part in any available programs for sex offenders.

“While these factors should be considered, a trial court is not required to individually assess each of these statutory factors on the record, nor is it required to find a specific number of these factors before it can adjudicate an offender a sexual predator so long as its determination is grounded upon clear and convincing evidence,” wrote Celebrezze.

The appellate panel found that the trial court discussed several of the statutory factors and arrived at the conclusion that Nelson’s prior convictions were significant factors that weighed heavily in favor of a severe classification.

Nelson argued that his good behavior in prison should have been considered as well as his participation in several programs.

“These factors were considered in the court psychiatric assessment and that analysis still found him to be at a moderate to high risk of committing a future sexually oriented offense,” wrote Celebrezze. “The fact that Nelson raped a 14-year-old girl a little over a year after getting out of prison for raping another 13-year-old girl weighs heavily in favor of classifying him as a sexual predator.”

The appellate panel noted that Nelson’s attempts to better himself while in prison were not ignored, but it ruled that his “laudable actions” were not enough to warrant a less severe classification.

The judgment of the Cuyahoga County court was affirmed with judges Sean Gallagher and Mary Eileen Kilbane concurring.

The case is cited State v. Nelson, 2014-Ohio-5285.

[Back]