Ohio Supreme Court to hear appeal of 115-year sentence given juvenile
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court plans to hear an appeal from a man who claims a 115-year prison sentence imposed when he was 15 years old violates his constitutional rights.
Brandon Moore was tried as an adult and convicted by a jury in the 2001 armed kidnapping, robbery and gang rape of a 21-year-old woman. He drew the sentence from Mahoning County Judge R. Scott Krichbaum in 2008.
Moore, now 28, claims a definite sentence that exceeds his life expectancy for crimes he committed as a juvenile violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The state's high court agreed to hear the case last week after a 2-1 decision of the 7th District Court of Appeals in December left the sentence intact, The (Youngstown) Vindicator reported.
Krichbaum imposed that sentence at Moore's second resentencing after appeals of previous sentences.
“It is the intention of this court that you should never be released from the penitentiary,” the judge told Moore at the time.
Moore's attorneys wrote that his prison term is the longest they know of for an Ohio juvenile offender.
Ralph M. Rivera, an assistant Mahoning County prosecutor, had urged the high court to decline to hear the case.
“This case does not involve any substantial constitutional questions and is of no public interest,” Rivera wrote.
The Moore case was one of only five appeals statewide that the Ohio Supreme Court accepted Wednesday for review. It refused to hear 74 other cases.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.