State v. Walton , 2018 Ohio 1680 ( 2018 )

[Cite as State v. Walton, 2018-Ohio-1680.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
LOGAN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 8-17-55
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ALEXUS E. WALTON, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Logan County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CR16-12-0337
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: April 30, 2018
APPEARANCES:
Steven R. Fansler for Appellant
Alice Robinson-Bond for Appellee
Case No. 8-17-55
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Alexus E. Walton (“Walton”) appeals the
judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the trial court
did not properly balance the seriousness and recidivism factors in sentencing her.
For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} On November 24, 2016, Walton’s boyfriend, MarQuevous Watkins
(“Watkins”) asked her to give him, Zachariah Huddleston (“Huddleston”), T.F., and
J.L. a ride to Jeffrey Brentlinger’s (“Brentlinger”) house. Walton agreed to drive
these four passengers after she was offered forty dollars in gas money. Walton was
aware that T.F. and J.L. were going to Brentlinger’s house to perform sexual acts
with Brentlinger in exchange for money. Tr. 8. Walton claims that she was unaware
that T.F., J.L., Huddleston, and Watkins intended to rob Brentlinger. However, on
the way to Brentlinger’s house, Walton, at the direction of her four passengers,
drove to Walmart where she participated in the theft of ski masks and duct tape. Tr.
12, 15. Further, Watkins told the police that the four passengers discussed their plan
to rob Brentlinger while they were in the car with Walton.
{¶3} As Walton approached Brentlinger’s house, she turned off her
headlights. Tr. 15. J.L. and T.F. then got out of the car and went into the house.
Watkins and Huddleston followed, wearing ski masks as they left the vehicle. Tr.
15. Inside the home, Watkins pulled out a gun and shot Brentlinger, who died
-2-
Case No. 8-17-55
shortly after suffering this injury. The four passengers then stole several items and
fled the scene. Walton was waiting for them in the car and drove Watkins,
Huddleston, J.L., and T.F. away. Tr. 15.
{¶4} Walton was charged with one count of complicity to aggravated
robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), R.C. 2923.03; one count of complicity
to aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), R.C. 2923.03; one count
of complicity to murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), R.C. 2923.03; and one
count of complicity to tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2923.03(A)(2),
R.C. 2921.12(A)(1). Doc. 2, 47. On October 2, 2017, Walton pled guilty to one
count of complicity to aggravated robbery. Doc. 135. The remaining charges
against her were dismissed. Doc. 137. Prior to this conviction, Walton’s criminal
record consisted of one disorderly conduct conviction and a speeding ticket. Tr. 20.
At her sentencing hearing on November 9, 2017, the State recommended a prison
sentence of seven years. Tr. 1, 15. The Defense asked that the trial court consider
a prison sentence of three or four years. Tr. 14. On December 1, 2017, Walton was
sentenced to a term of five years in prison. Doc. 142.
Assignment of Error
{¶5} Appellant filed notice of appeal on December 11, 2017. Doc. 155. On
appeal, appellant raises the following assignment of error:
The court erred in balancing the seriousness and recidivism
factors as components of its sentence.
-3-
Case No. 8-17-55
In her brief, Walton argues that the seriousness of the crimes of her compatriots was
attributed to her in the sentencing process. She asserts that seriousness and
recidivism factors, when applied to her individual conduct, show that her sentence
is unnecessarily harsh.
Legal Standard
{¶6} Trial courts are to sentence convicted felons in accordance with the
overriding purposes of felony sentencing, which
are 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. To effectuate compliance with these overriding purposes, the Ohio
Revised Code requires the trial court to consider a number of factors listed in R.C.
2929.12. The R.C. 2929.12 factors direct the trial court to evaluate the seriousness
of the offense and the likelihood of recidivism. R.C. 2929.12.
{¶7} Appellate courts defer to the broad discretion of the trial court in matters
of sentencing.1 State v. Witt, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-17-08, 2017-Ohio-7441, ¶ 12.
If the defendant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that his or her sentence
is “(1) contrary to law and/or (2) unsupported by the record,” an appellate court has
1
We note that the trial court is given discretion in applying the statutory factors in the process of determining
an appropriate sentence. A misapplication of these factors in sentencing that rises to the level of an abuse of
discretion is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Thus, we examine the record to determine whether the
trial court clearly and convincingly failed to act in accordance with the laws governing the imposition of
sentences.
-4-
Case No. 8-17-55
the authority, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), “to increase, reduce, or otherwise
modify a sentence * * *.” State v. McGowan, 147 Ohio St.3d 166, 2016-Ohio-2971,
62 N.E.3d 178, ¶ 1.
Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof
which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but
not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a
reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the
mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts
sought to be established.
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22,
quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three
of the syllabus.
Legal Analysis
{¶8} In this case, Walton admitted that she was aware that J.L. and T.F. were
going to commit an illegal act in Brentlinger’s house. Tr. 8. Further, the State
presented facts that indicated Walton was aware that she was furthering a scheme
to commit a robbery: Walton participated in the theft of ski masks and duct tape
from Walmart and was in the car as the four passengers were discussing their plan.
Tr. 15. She also drove the four passengers away from Brentlinger’s house after the
crimes had been committed. Tr. 15. After reviewing the record, we find that
competent, credible evidence supports the trial court’s decision to order a five-year
prison sentence for Walton. The appellant has not demonstrated, by clear and
-5-
Case No. 8-17-55
convincing evidence, that her sentence was contrary to law. For these reasons,
Walton’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶9} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Logan County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW and PRESTON, J.J., concur.
/hls
-6-