![]() |
|
![]() |
|||||||||||
| Criminal Justice | Voting Rights | Immigrant Rights | LGBT Rights | Juvenile Justice | All Issues |
|
04.06.00 State Appeals Court Vacates Sentence of Pregnant Prisoner Yuriko Kawaguchi Case Remanded to Common Pleas Court The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District (Cuyahoga
County) today vacated the sentence of Yuriko Kawaguchi. In October 1998,
Kawaguchi was sentenced to six months in prison by Judge Patricia
Cleary, for her role in a credit card scheme. Remarks made from the
bench during the sentencing hearing, as well as irregularities in the
way in which Kawaguchi was transferred to prison, suggest that her
sentence was enhanced because she expressed the desire to terminate her
pregnancy while incarcerated. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio
Foundation took her case, appealing her sentence and filing an separate
lawsuit against Judge Cleary and several other county employees, based
on the claim that Cleary had attempted to coerce Kawaguchi into carrying
her pregnancy to term. The Court of Appeals decision handed down today deals only with the
sentence imposed in October 1998. In a two-to-one split opinion, the
Court of Appeals today held that Judge Cleary sentenced Kawaguchi
without following the proper sentencing procedures required by Ohio law. The Ohio revised Code (Section 2929.19) established the proper
mechanism for sentencing those convicted of fifth degree felonies (the
least serious sort). Ordinarily, these comparatively minor crimes result
in the imposition of "community control sanctions," and not prison time.
The law requires judges to consider a number of factors before imposing
a prison term for minor felonies, and to formally list their reasons for
imposing a prison term for minor felonies, rather than the less severe
community control sanctions. The Court of Appeals did not reach the question of whether Judge
Cleary had sentenced Kawaguchi as a means of forcing her to carry
pregnancy to term, in violation of her constitutional rights.
Ordinarily, a court will not reach constitutional question if it can
overturn a case on statutory grounds, as happened here. The case now
returns to the Court of Common Pleas for proper sentencing. |