[Cite as State v. Morris, 2024-Ohio-2683.]

COURT OF APPEALS

ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, : JUDGES:

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.

 Plaintiff - Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

: Hon. Andrew J. King, J.

-vs- :

:

TYLER MORRIS aka TYLER MULLINS, : Case No. 23-COA-013

:

 Defendant - Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland County 

Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

1-CRI-218

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: July 15, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

Ashland County Prosecutor CHRISTOPHER BAZELEY

Appellate Division 9200 Montgomery Rd, Suite 8A

110 Cottage Street, Third Floor Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

Ashland, Ohio 44805
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-013 2

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} The appellant appeals his sentence following a re-sentencing hearing on 

remand. Appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶2} In 2019, when the appellant was seventeen (17) years old, he engaged in 

a drug sale with a co-defendant and, when the purchaser failed to pay for the drugs, 

appellant instigated a shooting that resulted in one death. More specifically, the appellant 

utilized his planning and verbal comprehension skills, and organized his cohorts to go 

and retrieve the money owed to him. He supplyed the logistical support, the firearm, and 

the means and the motive to commit murder and attempted murder. The appellant was 

tried as an adult and found guilty by a jury of several charges, including two counts of 

complicity to aggravated murder and two counts of complicity to attempted aggravated 

murder. He was sentenced to an indefinite life sentence with the possibility of parole after 

38 – 45 years. The appellant appealed the decision, and this Court affirmed in State v. 

Morris, 2021-Ohio-2646 (5th Dist.). 

{¶3} The appellant appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, which 

held:

Because the trial court failed to consider Morris's youth as a factor in 

sentencing, we hold that the trial court's sentence of life imprisonment 

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the 

Ohio Constitution. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Fifth District 

Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court to vacate Morris's 
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-013 3

sentence and resentence him after considering his youth as a mitigating 

factor.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

State v. Morris, 2022-Ohio-4609, ¶17. The matter was therefore remanded back to the 

trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s decision. 

{¶4} On April 30, 2023, the appellant filed the Defendant’s Sentencing 

Memorandum in which he argued that the trial court, considering the appellant’s “youth 

and its attendant characteristics” and the “broader principals and purposes of felony 

sentencing,” should impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years to life on one 

count of complicity to aggravated murder, with the sentences on the remaining counts to 

run concurrently for a total aggregate sentence of 20 years to life in prison and applicable 

jail or detention time credit applied. On June 22, 2023, the appellee filed a Presentence 

Submission to which it attached the appellant’s Full Institutional Report Summary from 

the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, and a transcript of the original 

sentencing hearing. On June 26, 2023, the appellant filed a Supplemental Exhibit to 

Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum to which he attached a letter from J.D., who 

supervised the appellant’s probation for a period of time during her employment with the 

Ashland County Juvenile Court. 

{¶5} A re-sentencing hearing was conducted on June 26, 2023. The trial court 

noted at the onset of the hearing that a jury had found the appellant guilty as follows:

Count 1 being Complicity to Aggravated Murder, Unclassified 

Felony, together with a related gun specification. Count 2, Complicity to 

Aggravated Murder, Unclassified Felony, together with a gun specification.
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-013 4

Count 7, Complicity to Aggravated Burglary, Felony of the First 

Degree, together with a gun specification.

Count 8, Complicity to Aggravated Robbery, a Felony of the First 

Degree, together with a related gun specification.

Count 9, Complicity to Attempted Aggravated Murder, Felony of the 

First Degree with a gun specification.

Count 10, Complicity to Attempted Aggravated Murder, Felony of the 

First Degree together with a gun specification.

Count 11, Aggravated Trafficking in drugs, Felony of the 4th Degree.

And Count 12, Unlawful Transaction in Weapons, Felony of the 4th 

Degree.

Count 13, Improperly Furnishing Firearms to a Minor, a Felony of the 

5th Degree.

It noted further that the appellant had ultimately appealed the original sentence to the 

Ohio Supreme Court, who remanded the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing after

consideration of the appellant’s youth as a mitigating factor. 

{¶6} A letter prepared by the appellant was read into the record, and appellant 

urged the trial court to impose a lesser sentence. The appellee presented arguments in 

support of imposing the same sentence. The trial court reviewed the pre-sentence 

investigation, the full case history, and the audio-recordings of the original sentencing. It 

considered the arguments, as well as the appellant’s youth as a mitigating factor. In fact, 

the court specifically stated that it considered the mitigating factors set forth in R.C. 
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-013 5

2929.11(B) and “the five factors dealing with the Defendant's age as he was under the 

age of 18 at the time that this was committed.” The trial court stated further:

The Court has considered among others the seriousness factors set 

forth in the Pre-Sentence investigation, including harm to both victims and 

the fact that this did involve a conspiracy to commit crime, that was 

committed by others. I have considered the factors that show that recidivism 

is likely, including your juvenile history and the fact that you were on juvenile 

probation at the time, I specifically considered the factors of recidivism to 

be unlikely and I have included in that the mitigating factors that the State 

set forth under 2929.11(B) and the five factors dealing with the Defendant's 

age as he was under the age of 18 at the time that this was committed.

I am not going to repeat those five factors for the record as the State 

has already laid them out, but the Court has considered those in 

consideration of this Sentence.

I understand that the Supreme Court indicates that Judge 

Forsthoefel did not explicitly consider your age, but when I reviewed the 

record, I think there are many references to your age, to your immaturity, 

and your IQ, and that you had a significant juvenile record that was 

mentioned, including five offenses over a two year period including violent 

offenses, including drug related offenses and both of which is why you sit 

here today. 

You have multiple probation violations and the Court has considered 

your age at the time of offense and your juvenile history. 
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-013 6

In looking at the original letters in support of you, all of them indicated 

that they felt that you desired -- that you had a sincere desire to change. To 

put your criminal behavior behind you, but as was mentioned by the State, 

the report that was filed from the institution showed that you continued in 

this behavior while you were incarcerated. You were fighting, you were 

intoxicated and I think worst of all, you propositioned the guard to set up 

another crime ring to bring in drugs and phones.

So here we are nearly four years later and you are 21, and you are 

continuing to engage in violence and you are continuing to engage in drug 

seeking behavior.

Going back to the time of this offense, you decided that a human life, 

really two lives, were not worth more than 50 dollars.

You were selling drugs and you did not get paid, so you provided a 

gun to your friends and sent them off to kill these two individuals.

This was a preplanned revenge killing, premeditated, discussed in 

advance, and because of you, someone's son, someone's brother, 

someone's uncle, a human life is gone and many lifes' [sic] have been 

affected.

So while your age is something to consider in mitigation, I do not find 

that it outweighs the seriousness of these offenses.

Quite frankly, when I go back and look at Judge Forsthoefel's 

sentence, I am not convinced that I would have done the same sentence, I 

think these facts could have easily justified maximum consecutive 
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-013 7

sentences on every count. I think that your behavior while you were 

incarcerated has supported that and I think that would ultimately satisfy the 

burden of this Court to provide a logical nonvindictive reason for imposing 

a longer sentence.

In fact the 5th District recently upheld Judge Forsthoefel in doing just 

that in State versus Watson.

But I do not want to create yet another appeal issue and put this 

family through it once again, but I also do not -- I am not going to deviate 

upwards, but I also do not see any reason to deviate downwards. I think 

that the sentence imposed by Judge Forsthoefel is consistent with the 

purposes and principles of sentencing, and I think that to deviate downward 

would demean the seriousness of the offense, and would be inconsistent 

with the purposes and principles of sentencing.

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶7} The trial court thus found that, while the appellant’s age at the time of the 

offenses was something that it considered, it did not outweigh the seriousness of the 

offenses of which the appellant was found guilty. Accordingly, the trial court, after duly 

considering the appellant’s youth as a mitigating factor, re-sentenced him to the same 

sentence as was previously imposed - an aggregate prison term of life with parole 

eligibility after thirty-eight (38) to forty-five (45) years, with credit for time served. The 

sentence was memorialized in a July 10, 2023, Judgment Entry – Sentencing. 
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-013 8

{¶8} The appellant filed a timely appeal and was appointed appellate counsel, 

who filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he set 

forth the following potential assignment of error:

{¶9} “I. THE SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY 

FOR PAROLE OF A TWENTY-ONE-YEAR-OLD MAN IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL 

PUNISHMENT UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT.” 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶10} The United States Supreme Court held in Anders that if, after conscientious 

examination of the record, an appellant’s counsel concludes that the appeal is wholly 

frivolous, then he or she should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. 

Id. at 744. Counsel must accompany the request with a brief identifying anything in the 

record that could arguably support the appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish his client 

with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw; and (2) allow his client sufficient time to 

raise any matters that the client chooses. Id. Once the appellant’s counsel has satisfied 

these requirements, the appellate court must fully examine the proceedings below to 

determine if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If the appellate court also determines 

that the appeal is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss 

the appeal without violating constitutional requirements or may proceed to a decision on 

the merits if state law so requires. Id. 

{¶11} On February 20, 2023, in addition to an Anders brief, counsel for appellant 

filed a motion to withdraw in which he informed this Court that: (1) he had made a review 

of the entire record and determined that there were no viable issues which would support 

an appeal; (2) that he filed a brief identifying one potential issue and requesting that this 
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-013 9

Court make an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any 

additional issues that would support an appeal; and (3) that on February 14, 2024, he 

served a copy of the motion, a copy of the brief, and notice that a pro se brief must be 

filed within 21 days upon the appellant by regular U.S. mail at Lebanon Correctional 

Institution, P.O. Box 56, Lebanon, OH 45036. We granted counsel’s leave to file the 

appellant brief instanter by Judgment Entry dated February 29, 2023. In addition, we 

informed the appellant by Judgment Entry dated February 22, 2024, that his attorney had 

filed an Anders brief on his behalf, and granted him sixty days from the date of the entry 

to file a pro se brief in support of the appeal. The appellant has not filed a pro se brief.

{¶12} The record establishes that the appellant’s counsel has satisfied the 

requirements set forth in Anders. Accordingly, we review the proposed assignment of 

error and determine whether any arguably meritorious issues exist, “... keeping in mind 

that, ‘Anders equates a frivolous appeal with one that presents issues lacking in arguable 

merit. An issue does not lack arguable merit merely because the prosecution can be 

expected to present a strong argument in reply or because it is uncertain whether a 

defendant will prevail on the issue on appeal. “An issue lacks arguable merit if, on the 

facts and law involved, no responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for 

reversal.” State v. Pullen, 2002-Ohio-6788, ¶ 4 (2nd Dist.); State v. Marbury, 2003-Ohio3242, ¶ 7-8 (2nd Dist.); State v. Chessman, 2005-Ohio-2511, ¶ 16-17 (2nd Dist.). State 

v. Moore, 2009-Ohio-1416, ¶4 (2nd Dist.).’” State v. Reynolds, 2024-Ohio-1956, ¶ 10 (5th

Dist.). 
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-013 10

ANALYSIS

{¶13} R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b) addresses the sentencing of an offender who was a 

youth at the time the offense was committed, and states:

If the offense was committed when the offender was under eighteen 

years of age, in addition to other factors considered, consider youth and its 

characteristics as mitigating factors, including:

(i) The chronological age of the offender at the time of the 

offense and that age's hallmark features, including intellectual capacity, 

immaturity, impetuosity, and a failure to appreciate risks and 

consequences;

(ii) The family and home environment of the offender at the time 

of the offense, the offender's inability to control the offender's surroundings, 

a history of trauma regarding the offender, and the offender's school and 

special education history;

(iii) The circumstances of the offense, including the extent of the 

offender's participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer 

pressures may have impacted the offender's conduct;

(iv) Whether the offender might have been charged and convicted 

of a lesser offense if not for the incompetencies associated with youth, such 

as the offender's inability to deal with police officers and prosecutors during 

the offender's interrogation or possible plea agreement or the offender's 

inability to assist the offender's own attorney;
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-013 11

(v) Examples of the offender's rehabilitation, including any 

subsequent growth or increase in maturity during confinement.

{¶14} The trial court heard arguments regarding these five factors during the 

sentencing hearing, and considered them when it determined that the original sentence 

should be re-imposed. The record supports the conclusion that the trial court duly 

considered the appellant’s youth and its characteristics in re-sentencing the appellant, 

including but not limited to his chronological age at the time of the offense and that age's 

hallmark features; the appellant’s family and home environment at the time of the offense, 

and his school and special education history; the circumstances of the offense, including 

the extent of the appellant’s participation in the conduct and the way peer pressures came 

into play, noting that it was the appellant who applied peer pressure upon his cohorts to 

engage in the criminal conduct that resulted in the death of one person; and, examples 

of the appellant’s lack of rehabilitation during confinement, noting that he had engaged in 

fighting, intoxication, and propositioning a guard to set up another crime ring to bring in 

drugs and phones into prison. 

{¶15} We find no arguably meritorious issues exist with regard to the sentence reimposed upon the appellant by the trial court following remand from the Ohio Supreme 

Court. The trial court properly considered the appellant’s youth at the time the offenses 

were committed as a mitigating factor, and committed no error in its re-sentencing of the 

appellant. 
Ashland County, Case No. 23-COA-013 12

CONCLUSION

{¶16} Based upon the foregoing, and after independently reviewing the record, 

we agree with appellate counsel’s conclusion that there are no non-frivolous claims that 

exist which would justify remand or review of the appellant’s sentence or a modification 

of the sentence currently imposed. We therefore find the appeal to be wholly frivolous 

under Anders. Attorney Christopher Bazeley’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the 

appellant is hereby granted, and the judgment of the Ashland County Court of Common 

Pleas is hereby affirmed. 

By: Baldwin, J.

Gwin, P.J. and

King, J. concur.