State v. Reed

[Cite as State v. Reed, 2014-Ohio-5463.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NO. 2013-L-130
- vs - :
TREVOR L. REED, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas.
Case No. 12 CR 000845.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor,
Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH
44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Pamela D. Kurt, 30432 Euclid Avenue, Suite 101, Wickliffe, OH 44092 (For
Defendant-Appellant).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Trevor L. Reed, appeals the judgment of conviction and
sentence entered by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, following a jury trial on
one count of aggravated arson. Appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment.
For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
{¶2} On March 26, 2013, appellant was indicted by appellee, the state of Ohio.
The indictment alleged that appellant committed aggravated arson in violation of R.C.
2909.02(A)(1), a felony of the first degree. Specifically, the indictment stated:
On or about the 4th day of September, 2012, in the Village of
Madison, Lake County, State of Ohio, one Trevor L. Reed did by
means of fire or explosion, knowingly create a substantial risk of
serious physical harm to any person other than the offender.
{¶3} On April 26, 2013, appellant waived his right to be present at arraignment
and entered a plea of not guilty. Appellant withdrew his not guilty plea on July 30, 2013,
and entered a written plea of guilty to attempted aggravated arson, a lesser-included
offense of the charge in the indictment. Sentencing on the guilty plea was scheduled for
September 5, 2013.
{¶4} On September 5, 2013, appellant orally moved to withdraw his guilty plea.
On September 6, 2013, the trial court granted appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty
plea. The trial court also allowed appellant’s counsel of record to withdraw and
appointed the Lake County Public Defender to represent appellant. The trial court
scheduled a jury trial for October 1, 2013.
{¶5} Appellee again extended a plea offer to appellant. However, appellant
failed to appear at the scheduled October 1, 2013 hearing where it was planned that he
would enter a plea of guilty to attempted aggravated arson. This hearing was
alternatively scheduled as a jury trial in the event that the trial court was unable to
procure a “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” guilty plea. Appellant failed to appear
because of an apparent suicide attempt, whereby appellant attempted to jump in front of
a train. Appellee then withdrew any offer to allow appellant to plead to a lesser charge.
2
On October 2, 2013, the trial court issued a judgment entry revoking and declaring
appellant’s bond forfeited. The trial court also ordered a warrant for appellant’s arrest.
{¶6} On November, 4, 2013, a three-day jury trial commenced. At trial, the
following facts were adduced.
{¶7} Appellant was separated and living apart from his former wife, Crystal
Reed. Appellant was living in an apartment that he shared with his then-girlfriend,
Julianna Fellows, on West Main Street in Madison Village, Ohio. Appellant’s two
daughters, T.R., then 10 years old, and M.R., then 4 years old, also lived with appellant
in the West Main Street apartment. The apartment was one of four units in the
structure, which was built in the early 1900s.
{¶8} On September 3, 2012, appellant, along with his two daughters and Ms.
Fellows, spent the Labor Day holiday at the Painesville Speedway watching drag races.
The group returned to their apartment at around 10:00 p.m., at which time the girls were
prepared for bed by appellant and Ms. Fellows. Appellant then smoked a cigarette on
the apartment’s porch before joining Ms. Fellows in bed.
{¶9} On September 4, 2012, Ms. Fellows was awakened by the apartment’s
smoke alarm. Ms. Fellows proceeded to get out of bed, went to the girls’ bedroom,
woke up M.R., and carried M.R. down the steps and outside of the apartment.
Appellant’s older daughter safely exited the house on her own while Ms. Fellows was
awakening M.R. As she was exiting the apartment, Ms. Fellows saw “flames lighting up
the inside of the room and the smoke billowing up into the ceiling.” Ms. Fellows said it
looked “like a bonfire.”
3
{¶10} As Ms. Fellows was evacuating appellant’s children and alerting the
neighbors, appellant extinguished the fire by dousing the couch, where the fire was
located, with three or four trashcans full of water from the kitchen sink. Ms. Fellows re-
entered the apartment to retrieve her phone so that she could call for emergency
services. As the fire was already extinguished by the time of their arrival, police and fire
personnel began to investigate the cause of the fire.
{¶11} At trial, Patrolman Alex Gritton of the Madison Village Police Department
testified that appellant claimed he was awakened by the sound of the smoke alarm.
Patrolman Gritton also testified that appellant told him at the scene of the fire that when
he went downstairs after hearing the smoke alarm, he noticed the front door was
standing open. Appellant told Patrolman Gritton that he thought someone had broke
into the apartment to set the couch on fire. Patrolman Gritton did not notice any signs of
forced entry. Patrolman Gritton also observed the area of the fire and the damage to
the couch. Finally, Patrolman Gritton testified to seeing what looked like wadded up
paper stuffed between the couch cushions.
{¶12} Madison Fire District firefighter Joseph Purcell was the second witness
called to testify on behalf of appellee. Mr. Purcell testified that he responded to the fire
at around 5:30 a.m. Mr. Purcell further testified that appellant told him “somebody [had]
broke into the house and set the fire.” Mr. Purcell stated that appellant’s two daughters
were asleep at the time the fire started. As part of his investigation of the scene, Mr.
Purcell preserved napkins that were “shoved down in between the cushions of [the]
couch.” Mr. Purcell also testified that some of the couch’s polystyrene had melted as a
result of an open flame. The wall behind the couch was also discolored by the fire, and
4
the paint was bubbled on the picture frame that hung above the couch. In his
testimony, Mr. Purcell noted that edges of the napkins were burnt, but not the centers.
Finally, Mr. Purcell testified that, based on his expert opinion, the picture frame above
the couch was minutes away from igniting. When asked by the prosecutor whether the
fire was “consistent with someone having stuffed napkins between those cushions
purposely, and having lit them with a cigarette lighter,” Mr. Purcell responded, “Yes.
Very consistent.”
{¶13} Lieutenant Gordon Thompson of the Painesville Township Fire
Department also testified on behalf of appellee. Lieutenant Thompson testified that he
is “a K-9 handler of an accelerant detection K-9, trained and certified by the U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”
Lieutenant Thompson and his K-9 partner, Tahoe, were deployed to determine whether
the fire involved the use of any sort of accelerant. Lieutenant Thompson and Tahoe did
not locate any ignitable liquids at the scene.
{¶14} Crystal Reed was the next witness to testify on behalf of appellee. Ms.
Reed testified that she and appellant were married in 2004. The couple had two
daughters, T.R. and M.R. In March 2012, Ms. Reed and appellant filed the initial
paperwork seeking a divorce. Ms. Reed testified that at the time of the fire, she and
appellant were living “separate and apart” and that appellant was living with his then
girlfriend, Ms. Fellows. On the morning of the fire, Ms. Reed received a text message
from appellant stating Ms. Reed did not need to take M.R. to pre-school that day. Ms.
Reed called appellant to ask why and was told by appellant that “someone had came in
and set the couch on fire. And that he better, that I better hope that it was not me.”
5
Investigators came to Ms. Reed’s office to ask whether she was involved in starting the
fire. At some point, they cleared Ms. Reed of any involvement.
{¶15} At trial, Ms. Reed testified to receiving a call from appellant on September
7, 2012. In that phone conversation, Ms. Reed asked appellant “why he did what he
did.” Ms. Reed testified that appellant responded that he “needed to buy time.” Ms.
Reed then ended the phone conversation. The following week, Ms. Reed sought a
protection order for herself, T.R., and M.R. As a result of the fire, Ms. Reed testified
that her daughters were “very emotional” and suffered many “sleepless nights.”
{¶16} T.R., appellant’s oldest daughter, testified that she saw smoke as she was
evacuating the apartment. When asked by the prosecutor how much smoke she saw,
T.R. responded, “about to fill the room, I think.” T.R. also testified she witnessed
appellant extinguish the fire.
{¶17} Appellee’s next witness was appellant’s girlfriend at the time of the fire,
Julianna Fellows. Ms. Fellows testified she was awakened by the smoke alarm and
saw appellant “kneeling on the side of the bed.” Ms. Fellows instructed T.R. to go
outside and then assisted M.R. down the steps and outside. Appellant announced to
Ms. Fellows that the couch was on fire. As she was leaving the apartment, Ms. Fellows
saw “flames lighting up the inside of the room and the smoke billowing up into the
ceiling.” Ms. Fellows said it looked “just like a bonfire.”
{¶18} After ensuring appellant’s two daughters were safe, Ms. Fellows re-
entered the apartment to retrieve her phone and called emergency services. She also
ensured that the other individuals living in adjacent apartments were safely evacuated.
Ms. Fellows testified that appellant told police and fire crews that he thought someone
6
broke into the apartment to start the fire. Ms. Fellows also testified that she noticed the
previously full napkin holder was completely empty after the fire.
{¶19} Ms. Fellows further testified that on September 6, 2012, she visited
appellant while he was in the hospital for a mental health evaluation. According to her
testimony, appellant confessed he set the fire because he “lost a wheel.” A little over a
week later, Ms. Fellows also filed for an order of protection against appellant. She
testified that, based on her conversation with appellant, she believed appellant intended
to start the fire.
{¶20} Next to testify on behalf of appellee was Detective Timothy Doyle of the
Madison Township Police Department. The day of the fire, Detective Doyle interviewed
appellant who declared that he believed somebody entered the residence and started
the fire while he was in bed.
{¶21} On September 6, 2012, Detective Doyle interviewed appellant, for a
second time, at the Madison Village Police Department. During the interview, appellant
admitted to taking napkins, putting them in the couch, and lighting them with a lighter.
Appellant also acknowledged that the fire had the potential to harm others.
{¶22} Appellee’s final witness was Chief Dawn Shannon of the Madison Village
Police Department. Chief Shannon testified that no cigarette butts were found in the
house. Chief Shannon also testified that during the September 6, 2012 interview,
appellant never indicated the couch fire was an accident of any kind.
{¶23} After the prosecution rested, appellant testified in his own defense.
Appellant testified that after returning home from the drag races, he and M.R. sat on the
couch while she had a glass of chocolate milk. Appellant testified that he had a habit of
7
sticking napkins between the cushions “just in case she made a mess, or for any
particular reason.”
{¶24} Appellant testified that he woke up around 5:00 a.m. to smoke a cigarette.
Instead of smoking outside like he normally does, appellant testified that he smoked this
cigarette on the couch. Appellant claimed that he used the napkins that had been
stuffed between the couch cushions as an ashtray. After finishing his cigarette,
appellant testified that he disposed of the cigarette butt in the toilet and went back
upstairs to bed. Appellant was later awoken by the smoke alarm. Appellant then told
Ms. Fellows to get the girls out of the apartment while he used an empty trashcan to
douse water onto the fire.
{¶25} While testifying in his own defense, appellant admitted that he lied when
he previously stated someone came into the house and started the fire. Appellant
instead insisted that the fire was an accident, the result of carelessly using a napkin as
an ashtray. Finally, appellant testified that his confession to police was “an absolute lie”
and that he never confessed to either Ms. Fellows or Ms. Reed. Appellant admitted on
cross-examination that he never made any statement to police that the fire was an
accident.
{¶26} On re-direct, appellant stated the reason he did not immediately admit that
the fire was an accident:
I was an idiot for using a napkin for an ashtray, and then outright
told them a lie over and over, because I was too scared to take
responsibility. And at that time—and he was looking at me, and he
kept asking me questions, and I was—and they knew I have no
background of ever trying to hurt nobody.
8
{¶27} On November 7, 2013, a jury found appellant guilty of aggravated arson, a
felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2909.02(A)(1). The trial court sentenced
appellant to five years imprisonment. The trial court also ordered that appellant shall
register annually as an arson offender for life, as set forth in R.C. 2909.14-15.
{¶28} Appellant timely appeals the judgment of conviction and sentence and
sets forth six assignments of error for our review.
{¶29} As his first assignment of error, appellant states:
{¶30} “The Appellant’s conviction was based upon insufficient evidence was
otherwise against the sufficient and/or manifest weight of the evidence and not beyond
a reasonable doubt contrary to Ohio law and the State and Federal Constitutions.”
{¶31} We first begin with appellant’s sufficiency argument. Appellant argues that
appellee failed to prove the elements of aggravated arson beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶32} When measuring the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must
consider whether the state set forth adequate evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict as a
matter of law. City of Kent v. Kinsey, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2003-P-0056, 2004-Ohio-
4699, ¶11, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). A verdict is
supported by sufficient evidence when, after viewing the evidence most strongly in favor
of the prosecution, there is substantial evidence upon which a jury could reasonably
conclude that the state proved all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Schaffer, 127 Ohio App.3d 501, 503 (11th Dist.1998), citing State v. Schlee,
11th Dist. Lake No. 93-L-082, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 5862, *14-15 (Dec. 23, 1994).
9
{¶33} Appellant was found guilty of a violation of R.C. 2909.02(A)(1), which
states: “No person, by means of fire * * *, shall knowingly * * * [c]reate a substantial risk
of serious physical harm to any person other than the offender[.]”
{¶34} Pursuant to R.C. 2901.22(B), a person acts knowingly, “regardless of his
purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will
probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is
aware that such circumstances probably exist.”
{¶35} A substantial risk is defined in R.C. 2901.01(A)(8) as “a strong possibility,
as contrasted with a remote or significant possibility, that a certain result may occur or
that certain circumstances may exist.”
{¶36} Finally, pursuant to R.C. 2901.01(5), serious physical harm to persons
means any of the following:
(a) Any mental illness or condition of such gravity as would
normally require hospitalization or prolonged psychiatric treatment;
(b) Any physical harm that carries a substantial risk of death;
(c) Any physical harm that involves some permanent incapacity,
whether partial or total, or that involves some temporary,
substantial incapacity;
(d) Any physical harm that involves some permanent disfigurement
or that involves some temporary, serious disfigurement;
(e) Any physical harm that involves acute pain of such duration as
to result in substantial suffering or that involves any degree of
prolonged or intractable pain.
{¶37} The evidence produced at trial demonstrates the state put forth substantial
evidence upon which a jury could reasonably conclude that appellee proved all
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
10
{¶38} First, there was sufficient evidence to find that appellant acted knowingly.
The trial court heard the testimony of Ms. Fellows and Ms. Reed about self-incriminating
statements appellant made days after the fire. Additionally, the trial court reviewed
appellant’s self-incriminating statements made while being interviewed by police on
September 6, 2012, at the Madison Village Police Department. At trial, appellant
claimed that his confession to police was “an absolute lie” and that he never confessed
to either Ms. Fellows or Ms. Reed. The trial court was free to believe all, part, or none
of appellant’s own trial testimony. Hill v. Briggs, 111 Ohio App.3d 405, 412 (10th
Dist.1996). The verdict reached by the jury reflects the fact that the jury was not
persuaded by appellant’s own testimony and found the testimony of Ms. Fellows and
Ms. Reed more persuasive. Additionally, appellee put forth significant additional
evidence to reflect that appellant acted knowingly. Included in this evidence is the
testimony of firefighter Purcell who stated that the burn patterns on the napkins were
very consistent with someone having lit them with a cigarette lighter. Accordingly, our
review of the record demonstrates there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that
appellant acted knowingly.
{¶39} Appellee also offered sufficient evidence for the jury to find that appellant
created a substantial risk of serious physical harm. Specifically, the jury heard
testimony about appellant’s apartment and the additional dangers that fires present in
older structures. The jury also heard the testimony of appellant’s daughter, T.R., and
Ms. Fellows who saw smoke filling the apartment’s living room. In her testimony, Ms.
Fellows compared the couch fire to a bonfire. The jury also heard testimony about the
dangers of smoke inhalation and carbon monoxide poisoning which are strong risks that
11
accompany house fires. Furthermore, the fact that the fire occurred at night when
appellant’s girlfriend, children, and neighbors were likely to be asleep also shows that
appellant created a substantial risk of serious physical harm. The fact that appellant
extinguished the fire before any serious physical harm resulted does not negate the fact
that appellant created a substantial risk of serious physical harm. Accordingly, there
was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find appellant guilty of violating R.C. 2909.02
beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶40} Under his first assignment of error, appellant also maintains the trial
court’s finding of guilt is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶41} To determine whether a verdict is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, a reviewing court must consider the weight of the evidence, including the
credibility of the witnesses and all reasonable inferences, to determine whether the trier
of fact “lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the
conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio
St.3d 380, 387 (1997). In weighing the evidence submitted at a criminal trial, an
appellate court must defer to the factual findings of the trier of fact regarding the weight
to be given the evidence and credibility of the witnesses. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio
St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶42} As we previously discussed, the jury found appellant’s testimony to be
unpersuasive. Instead, the jury believed appellee’s version of events and relied on the
incriminating statements made by appellant to Ms. Reed, Ms. Fellows, and police
investigators. Nothing in the record indicates the jury lost its way in finding appellant
12
guilty of violating R.C. 2909.02. Accordingly, the finding of guilt was not against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶43} Appellant’s first assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶44} In his second assignment of error, appellant asserts:
{¶45} “The Appellant was denied a fair trial guaranteed by Federal and Ohio
laws and Constitutions through the opening statement, trial, and closing statements of
the Prosecutor in front of the jury.”
{¶46} Under this assignment of error, appellant alleges the prosecutor’s
remarks, arguments, and prayers were plain error and affected the outcome of the trial.
{¶47} The following exchanges occurred during appellee’s cross-examination of
appellant:
Prosecutor: Now let me tell you what we’re not gonna do. We’re
not gonna insult this jury’s intelligence by coming up with more lies
during our conversation.
Defense Counsel: Objection, Your Honor.
[Court]: Sustained.
Prosecutor: When you and I talk from now on, we’re gonna talk
about things that happened, that are facts in this case.
Defense Counsel: Objection, Your Honor.
[Court]: Sustained.
***
Prosecutor: So I’m gonna offer you, figuratively, my hand. Right here and
right now. And we’re gonna talk about what the truth is. It’s your last
chance.
Defense Counsel: Your Honor, I’m gonna object to this line of
questioning.
[Court]: Sustained.
13
***
Prosecutor: Now you think if you had asked Julianna prior to doing
what you did, in starting that fire, should I do this? She would have
said don’t do it. Right?
Defense Counsel: Objection, Your Honor.
[Court]: Sustained.
Prosecutor: Had you taught 11 year old [T.R.] about the dangers of
playing with fire?
Defense Counsel: Objection.
[Court]: Sustained, I’ll tolerate * * * few more objections after that.
{¶48} During appellee’s closing argument, the prosecutor stated:
I almost feel like we should have a moment of silence. And then
somebody should say amen. And I’m not trying to attack a witness,
but that closing argument was a prayer for you folks. It was a
prayer to take sympathy on this defendant.
{¶49} The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the remarks of the
prosecutor were improper and, if so, whether they prejudiced the defendant. State v.
Triplett, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0018, 2013-Ohio-5190, ¶76, citing State v.
Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 15 (1984).
{¶50} “‘Generally, prosecutorial misconduct is not a basis for overturning a
criminal conviction, unless, on the record as a whole, the misconduct can be said to
have deprived the defendant of a fair trial.’” State v. Dudas, 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2008-
L-109 & 2008-L-110, 2009-Ohio-1001, ¶26, quoting State v. Hillman, 10th Dist. Franklin
Nos. 06AP-1230 & 07AP-728, 2008-Ohio-2341, ¶26. “An appellant is entitled to a new
trial only when a prosecutor asks improper questions or makes improper remarks and
those questions or remarks substantially prejudiced appellant.” State v. Bruce, 8th Dist.
14
Cuyahoga No. 70982, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4334, *19 (Sept. 25, 1997). “In analyzing
whether an appellant was deprived of a fair trial, an appellate court must determine
whether, absent the improper questions or remarks, the jury would have found the
appellant guilty.” Id. The focus of that inquiry is on “the fairness of the trial, not the
culpability of the prosecutor.” Id.{¶51} In this case, the prosecuting attorney aggressively cross-examined
appellant about his inconsistent statements. Appellant’s attorney quickly objected to
these questions, and the trial court sustained appellant’s objections. The trial court’s
jury instructions stated that the jury may not consider “any statements that were stricken
by the Court or that you were instructed to disregard.” Additionally, we cannot conclude
that any of the prosecuting attorney’s statements cast doubt on the fairness of
appellant’s trial. Accordingly, appellant’s second assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶52} In his third assignment of error, appellant argues:
{¶53} “The Appellant was denied his rights contrary to Ohio law and the State
and Federal Constitutions when the trial court permitted, over objection and motion in
limine, the Appellant’s wife, even though separated, to testify about an alleged
confession of guilty.”
{¶54} Specifically, appellant asserts that because he and Ms. Reed were still
married at the time of the incident, it was error for the trial court to allow Ms. Reed to
testify about “an alleged confession of guilt [made by appellant] while he was in the
hospital being treated for mental health issues.”
{¶55} R.C. 2945.42 states, in part:
Husband or wife shall not testify concerning a communication made
by one to the other, or act done by either in the presence of the
15
other, during coverture, unless the communication was made or act
done in the known presence or hearing of a third person competent
to be a witness * * *.
{¶56} As such, R.C. 2945.42 only makes privileged certain communications
between spouses that take place during coverture. “Coverture suggests a man and a
woman are married under the law, whether by license or common law, and cohabitating
as such.” Village of Bentleyville v. Pisani, 100 Ohio App.3d 515, 517 (8th Dist.1995)
(emphasis added).
{¶57} The traditional justification for the spousal privilege is the underlying
principle that it is necessary to promote peace and marital harmony. State v. Mowery, 1
Ohio St.3d 192, 198 (1982). In this case, no such justification exists. Appellant and Ms.
Reed had been separated since October 2011 and were in the process of obtaining a
divorce when appellant made self-implicating statements to Ms. Reed. Indeed,
appellant was living with his then-girlfriend, Ms. Fellows. As such, appellant and Ms.
Reed were no longer “in coverture.” Accordingly, the trial court did not err in allowing
Ms. Reed to testify over appellant’s objection.
{¶58} Appellant’s third assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶59} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant argues:
{¶60} “The trial court erred in not granting the Appellant’s Motion for Acquittal
pursuant to Rule 29 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and Ohio and Federal law
and Constitutions.”
{¶61} “A motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A) is governed by the same
standard as the one for determining whether a verdict is supported by sufficient
evidence.” State v. Tenace, 109 Ohio St.3d 255, 2006-Ohio-2417, ¶37. Having already
16
found that appellant’s conviction was based on sufficient evidence, appellant’s fourth
assignment of error is without merit.
{¶62} Appellant’s fifth assignment of error states:
{¶63} “The Appellant was denied due process and other laws and rights by a
sentence contrary to Ohio law and the State and Federal Constitutions.”
{¶64} Specifically, appellant alleges the trial court failed to adequately consider
appellant’s lack of a prior criminal record, the fact that no person was injured, and
appellant’s diagnosed mental health conditions.
{¶65} Ohio’s felony-sentencing scheme allows judges to exercise discretion
within established statutory bounds. State v. Ries, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2008-P-0064,
2009-Ohio-1316, ¶13, citing State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006), paragraph three
of the syllabus. Despite having significant latitude to sentence, sentencing courts are
required to follow statutory direction in choosing a prison term. State v. Belew, 140
Ohio St.3d 221, 2014-Ohio-2964, ¶10 (Lanzinger, J., dissenting).
{¶66} In 2011, the Ohio General Assembly passed Am.Sub.H.B. No. 86 (“H.B.
86”). H.B. 86 reflects the General Assembly’s intent that appellate review of sentences
be governed by R.C. 2953.08(G). R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states:
The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this
section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the
sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a
sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the
sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for
resentencing. The appellate court’s standard for review is not
whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate
court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and
convincingly finds either of the following:
17
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings
under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or
(C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the
Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶67} Accordingly, although the trial court has discretion to impose a sentence
within the statutory range, this court utilizes R.C. 2953.08(G) as the standard of review
in all felony sentencing appeals.
{¶68} Appellant argues that his sentence was excessive and contrary to the
purposes of felony sentencing. A felony sentence should be reasonably calculated “to
protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the
offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those
purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government
resources.” R.C. 2929.11(A). A court imposing a felony sentence is required to
consider seriousness and recidivism factors found in R.C. 2929.12. It is well
established, however, that a trial court is “not required to make findings of fact under the
seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12.” State v. ONeil, 11th Dist. Portage
No. 2010-P-0041, 2011-Ohio-2202, ¶34.
{¶69} At appellant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court stated the following:
[T]he Court’s considered the record, the oral statements made,
victim impact, pre-sentence report, comprehensive psychological
evaluation, my conference with counsel and probation previously,
and all of the prior hearings in this case, and the statements of the
[appellant] and [appellant]’s counsel. The Court’s also considered
the overriding purposes of felony sentencing pursuant to R.C.
2929.11 which are to protect the public from future crime by this
offender and others similarly situated, and to punish this offender
using the minimum sanctions that the Court determines accomplish
the process without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or
local governmental resources. I have considered the need for
18
incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restitution. The Court
has considered the separate recommendations of the parties. I
have reasonably calculated this sentence to achieve the two
overriding purposes of felony sentencing and to be commensurate
with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s
conduct and its impact on society and the victims. * * * In using my
discretion to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing
I have considered all relevant factors including the seriousness and
the recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. The victims were
young, particularly the youngest child. The court understands that
a fire in the residence in the middle of the night would be
accompanied by some psychological harm. [Appellant] had a
relationship with the victims that facilitated the offense. Not only did
he commit the offense, but he would be obligated to prevent
someone else from committing this offense. He didn’t cause
physical harm to someone, however he didn’t take the means to
guarantee that there would be no physical harm caused to anyone.
He has no prior record. The court fails to find genuine remorse.
{¶70} Additionally, in its judgment entry of sentence, the trial court declared:
The Court has considered the record, oral statements, any victim
impact statement, the pre-sentence report and/or drug and alcohol
evaluation submitted by the Lake County Adult Probation
Department of the Court of Common Pleas, as well as the
principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, and has
balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C.
2929.12.
In considering the foregoing, and for the reasons stated in the
record, this Court finds that a prison sentence is consistent with the
purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and
that [appellant] is not amenable to any available community control
sanction.
{¶71} Our review of the trial court record shows that the trial court’s findings
under R.C. 2929.13 and R.C. 2929.14 are supported by the record. Additionally, our
review shows that the sentencing court considered the purposes and principles of felony
sentencing contained in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 before imposing appellant’s
sentence. While it may be that this court would have chosen a different sentence, the
19
fact remains that appellant’s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.
Accordingly, the five-year term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court is affirmed.
{¶72} Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in requiring him to register
pursuant to R.C. 2909.14 and R.C. 2909.15, Ohio’s arson offender registry.
{¶73} Ohio’s arson offender registry, contained in R.C. 2909.14 and R.C.
2909.15, became effective July 1, 2013. The law requires convicted arsonists to
register with their local sheriff’s office annually. Pursuant to R.C. 2909.15(C)(2), the
annual registration form completed by each arson offender must include:
(a) The arson offender’s * * * full name and any alias used;
(b) The arson offender’s * * * residence address;
(c) The arson offender’s * * * social security number;
(d) Any driver’s license number, commercial driver’s license
number, or state identification card number issued to the arson
offender * * * by this or another state;
(e) The offense that the arson offender * * * was convicted of or
pleaded guilty to;
(f) The name and address of any place where the arson offender * *
* is employed;
(g) The name and address of any school or institution of higher
education that the arson offender * * * is attending;
(h) The identification license plate number of each vehicle owned or
operated by the arson offender * * * or registered in the arson
offender’s * * * name, the vehicle identification number of each
vehicle, and a description of each vehicle;
(i) A description of any scars, tattoos, or other distinguishing marks
on the arson offender * * *;
(j) Any other information required by the attorney general.
20
{¶74} This arson offender information is retained in a central database
maintained by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. With limited exception, an arson
offender’s duty to register continues for life. See R.C. 2909.15(D)(2)(a). Failure to
comply with the registration requirements is a felony of the fifth degree. R.C.
2909.15(H).
{¶75} Appellant argues that the application of the arson offender registry to him
violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution and the prohibition
against retroactive laws in the Ohio Constitution. We note that this appears to be the
first challenge to Ohio’s arson offender registry being imposed retroactively.
{¶76} Article 1, Section 10, cl.1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “No State
shall * * * pass any * * * ex post facto Law * * *.” The United States Supreme Court has
interpreted this to prohibit “any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously
committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the
punishment for a crime, after its commission * * *.” Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169
(1925).
{¶77} The ex post facto clause applies only to criminal statutes. State v. Cook,
83 Ohio St.3d 404, 415 (1998), citing California Dept. of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499,
504 (1995). Ohio courts have used the “intent-effects” test to evaluate whether a
statute’s enforcement is void as being passed ex post facto. See, e.g., Cook, supra, at
415.
{¶78} The intent prong requires reviewing courts to determine whether the
General Assembly’s intent in promulgating R.C. 2909.14 and R.C. 2909.15 was penal or
remedial. A court must look to the language and purpose of the statute in order to
21
determine legislative intent. State v. S.R., 63 Ohio St.3d 590, 594-595 (1992);
Provident Bank v. Wood, 36 Ohio St.2d 101, 105 (1973).
{¶79} The language of R.C. 2909.14 and R.C. 2909.15, as included above,
reveals the General Assembly’s intent was to promote public safety. R.C. 2909.14 and
R.C. 2909.15 essentially require that an arson offender annually register in the county in
which the offender resides. Registration with the sheriff’s department allows law
enforcement officials to remain vigilant about possible recidivism by arson offenders.
Therefore, registration objectively serves the remedial purpose of protecting the local
community from repeat arson offenders.
{¶80} Accordingly, we find the General Assembly’s intent with regard to R.C.
2909.14 and R.C. 2909.15 to be civil in nature, not punitive.
{¶81} We now turn to the effects prong. In determining whether a statute is
punitive, a “civil label is not always dispositive.” Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 369
(1986). However, only “the clearest proof” will be adequate to show that a statute has a
punitive effect so as to negate a declared remedial intention. Id.; Flemming v. Nestor,
363 U.S. 603, 617 (1960).
{¶82} “There is no absolute test to determine whether a retroactive statute is so
punitive as to violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws; such a
determination is a ‘matter of degree.’” State v. Cook, supra, at 418. In determining
whether a statute is punitive, the United States Supreme Court has considered the
following:
Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint,
whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, whether
it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, whether its
operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment --
22
retribution and deterrence, whether the behavior to which it applies
is already a crime, whether an alternative purpose to which it may
rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears
excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned * * *.
(Footnotes omitted.) Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-169 (1963).
{¶83} Here, Ohio’s arson offender registry requires all convicted arsonists to
register various pieces of information annually. While the act of registering may cause
some inconvenience, it does not restrain the offender in any way. Instead, the arson
offender registry requirements constitute a de minimus administrative requirement.
Indeed, the requirements of the registry are less stringent to previously upheld sex
offender registries. See, e.g., Cook. For example, unlike previously upheld sex
offender registries, the arson offender registry is not publicly accessible. Accordingly,
we hold that Ohio’s arson offender registry does not violate the ex post facto clause of
the United States Constitution.
{¶84} We now address whether Ohio’s arson offender registry violates the
prohibition against retroactive laws found in the Ohio Constitution. Article II, Section 28
of the Ohio Constitution provides that “[t]he general assembly shall have no power to
pass retroactive laws[.]” “‘Every statute which takes away or impairs vested rights
acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or
attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past, must
be deemed retrospective or retroactive.’” Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36
Ohio St.3d 100, 106 (1988), quoting Cincinnati v. Seasongood, 46 Ohio St. 296, 303
(1889). In other words, a court must consider whether a statute is substantive or merely
remedial in determining whether a statute is unconstitutionally retroactive. Cook, supra,
at 410-411. “A statute is ‘substantive’ if it impairs or takes away vested rights, affects
23
an accrued substantive right, imposes new or additional burdens, duties, obligation or
liabilities as to a past transaction, or creates a new right. Id. at 411. Conversely,
“remedial” laws affect only the remedy provided. Id. A remedial statute, even if
retroactive, does not violate Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution. Id.
{¶85} The sex offender registration requirements were significantly increased by
revisions to Megan’s Law. The Ohio Supreme Court ultimately found that the
registration requirements had become punitive and, therefore, not subject to retroactive
application. State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, ¶15. However, we
find persuasive the reasoning of the Ohio Supreme Court in Cook, which upheld
retroactive application of Ohio’s Megan’s Law, prior to its punitive revisions. Cook,
supra, at 423. The requirements of Ohio’s arson offender registry are less onerous then
those considered under Megan’s Law in Cook, even if registration requirements are for
life. We also rely on the fact that the arson offender registry is not a public record. R.C.
2909.15(E)(2). Additionally, registration is only once a year, and the fees to register are
minimal. R.C. 2909.15(D)(1) & (F). For this reason, the statute is merely remedial and
is not unconstitutionally retroactive as applied to appellant’s classification.
{¶86} Accordingly, as we see no error with appellant’s sentence, his fifth
assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶87} In his sixth and final assignment of error, appellant asserts:
{¶88} “The Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel contrary to
Ohio law and the State and Federal Constitutions due to his ineffective assistance of
trial counsel.”
24
{¶89} The standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel was stated by
the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984). This standard has been repeatedly followed by the Ohio Supreme Court and by
this court. See, e.g., State v. Gillard, 40 Ohio St.3d 226, 234 (1988); State v. Haney,
11th Dist. Lake 2012-L-098, 2013-Ohio-2823, ¶10.
{¶90} In order to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the
defendant must satisfy a two-pronged test. First, the defendant must show that
counsel’s performance was deficient. Strickland, supra, at 687. This requires a
showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the
counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Id. The defendant bears the burden of
proving that trial counsel’s assistance fell below an objective standard of reasonable
representation. State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 142 (1989), citing Strickland,
supra, at 687-688. Because there are many ways to provide effective assistance, there
is a strong presumption that trial counsel’s performance fell within the wide range of
reasonable professional assistance. Id., citing Strickland at 689.
{¶91} Second, the defendant must show the deficient performance prejudiced
the defense. In order to satisfy this prong, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s * * * errors, the result of the [trial] would
have been different.” Strickland at 694; accord Bradley, paragraph three of the
syllabus.
{¶92} In alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, appellant
states:
The Appellant will not rehash the evidence of ineffective assistance
of counsel provided in the other Assignments of Error and the
25
Appellant expressly incorporates those facts and arguments herein.
However, it is important to note that the Appellant wanted to call
additional witness[es], including his landlord who would testify as to
the minimal damage to the wall and/or structure. The Appellant
also wanted additional evidence of his mental health condition and
additional evidence and pictures regarding the minimal yellow stain
on the wall and couch condition. The Appellant was even
prevented from introducing rebuttal evidence, including testimony
from individuals, regarding Ms. Fellow’s lies about the Appellant
purportedly admitting to setting napkins on fire and leaving them on
the couch.
{¶93} Our review of the record and appellant’s merit brief does not meet the test
for ineffective assistance of trial counsel as set forth in Strickland. We note that the
decision as to whether to call a witness is generally a matter of trial strategy and, absent
a showing of prejudice, does not deprive a defendant of effective assistance. State v.
Williams, 74 Ohio App.3d 686, 695 (8th Dist.1991), citing State v. Reese, 8 Ohio App.3d
202, 203 (1st Dist.1982).
{¶94} Appellant’s attorney may have decided not to call appellant’s landlord to
testify because the actual amount of damage done to the apartment would not aid in
disproving any element of the underlying offense. Furthermore, the jury already had
significant evidence about the relatively minor amount of damage actually done to the
apartment. Finally, appellant’s counsel cross-examined Ms. Fellows about the
incriminating statements made by appellant.
{¶95} Appellant fails to demonstrate that his trial counsel’s performance fell
below an objective standard of reasonable representation or demonstrate any prejudice
by trial counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. Therefore, appellant’s sixth assignment
of error is not well taken.
26
{¶96} As all of appellant’s assignments of error are without merit, the judgment
of conviction and sentence entered by the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is
hereby affirmed.
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.,
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
concur.
27