The decision was part of an appeal Perry filed in response to a criminal case in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court.
He was accused of sexually abusing three girls between 2000 and 2003. The victims reported the abuse when they were in their 20s, resulting in an indictment in January 2023, according to court records.
On May 1, 2024, a jury found Perry guilty of one count of rape, eight counts of gross sexual imposition and five counts of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles.
Judge Kimberly Melnick sentenced Perry to 29 and a half years in prison a few weeks later, according to common pleas court records.
Perry claimed four errors were made in the common pleas case.
One error was the sentencing was flipping counts five and 11 during his sentencing.
The court sentenced him for gross sexual imposition on the fifth count in the indictment, which charged him with disseminating matter harmful to juveniles.
He also claimed common pleas court erred in sentencing for disseminating matter harmful to juveniles on count 11, which charged him with gross sexual imposition.
The appeals court agreed, and sent the matter back to common pleas court for resentencing, according to Ohio Second District Court of Appeal records.
Credit: Montgomery County Jail
Credit: Montgomery County Jail
On May 15, Perry was resentenced to a total of 25 years, according to the Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office. He must serve at least 10 years before he can be eligible parole.
In the appeal, Perry also claimed he received ineffective counsel because his defense attorney did not seek to have the disseminating matter harmful to juveniles and gross sexual imposition charges dismissed due to the statute of limitations.
The appeals court agreed the statute of limitations expired for the disseminating matter harmful to juveniles expired and vacated the conviction. However, it disagreed the period expired for the eight counts of gross sexual imposition and overruled that part of the appeal.
The court also overruled Perry’s assertion that his conviction for two counts of undifferentiated gross sexual imposition charges violated his right to due process.
One of the women testified in court to a specific sexual act occurring more than once, according to the appeals court.
The court said it is reasonable for the victim to know the difference between something happening more than once and that at a minimum more than once means twice.
Perry also argued common pleas court erred when the jury read the verdict without him present.
He reportedly was having heart issues and a medic transported him to the hospital.
His defense told Perry’s girlfriend the verdict would still be read before the court knew about Perry’s medical issue, according to the appeals court.
“Under these circumstances, defense counsel arguably waived Perry’s presence by advising the trial court that he already had told Perry’s girlfriend ‘the verdict will still be read,’“ the decision read. ”Therefore, the trial court’s decision to proceed in his absence was not an obvious error.”
The appeals court also noted there is no reason to believed the verdict would be different if the trial court delayed the proceeding.
Perry has also filed a motion to receive a new trial in common pleas court. The judge has not ruled on the motion as of Thursday.
About the Author