The acts involved children ranging in age from 2 to 5 years old.
WARREN -- The 1989 conviction of a Howland man who pleaded guilty to eight counts of child rape has been upheld by an appellate court, which found no deal was cut for parole eligibility.
Clyde Bush, formerly of Anderson Avenue, is in the Marion Correctional Institution, having pleaded guilty in 1989 to eight counts of rape, one count of attempted rape and five counts of gross sexual imposition.
He was the husband of a day-care center operator who took care of children, mostly for professional people, in the Howland area. His trial was heard by retired Judge Mitchell F. Shaker of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court.
Bush sought to withdraw those guilty pleas, but the 11th District Court of Appeals denied his motion in an opinion released Monday.
Upon conviction, Bush was handed concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for each rape count; 10 to 25 years for attempted rape; and two years on each of the gross sexual imposition counts.
The appeals court had affirmed the judgment of the trial court once before, in 1998. But the Ohio Adult Parole Authority adopted new parole guidelines on March 1, 1998, that established a parole guidelines chart to determine the range of time that a prisoner should serve before being released.
In October 1999, the parole board determined Bush was not eligible for parole until he served 240 to 300 months of imprisonment. The parole board noted the offensive behavior involved sexual conduct and/or contact with 10 children ranging in age from 2 to 5 years old.
In November 2003, Bush said he didn't knowingly and intelligently plead guilty, saying he was told by his attorney that he'd get 10 to 15 years in prison. The trial court denied his motion to withdraw the pleas.
Bush's appeal to the 11th District Court argued the state of Ohio breached his plea agreement by denying parole in 1999 and by determining that he would be eligible for parole in 2009.
The court noted, however, that Bush's signed guilty plea does not mention parole eligibility. The record also indicated that he was entering the plea voluntarily with full understanding of the rights he was waiving and the nature of the charges and penalties.
The appeals court also said the trial court did not abuse its discretion.