[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2023-Ohio-1890.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

No. 111912

v. :

ELLIS JAMES WILSON, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 8, 2023

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR-20-655433-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Kristin M. Karkutt, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

Valore & Gordillo LLP and Matthew O. Williams, for 

appellant.

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J.:

Appellant Ellis James Wilson (“appellant”) appeals the judgment of the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas imposing consecutive sentences on his 

convictions for murder and having a weapon while under disability. After a 
thorough review of the applicable law and facts, we affirm the judgment of the trial 

court. 

I. Factual and Procedural History

The victim in this matter, Breyana Presley (“Breyana”), was shot and 

killed by appellant while she was driving with two of her daughters in the vehicle. 

The children were 12 years old and eight months old.

Appellant and Breyana had known each other for a number of years and 

had been in and out of each other’s lives. On the day in question, Breyana had driven 

her daughters to the home of a member of appellant’s family. Appellant, who was 

intoxicated, was there and got in Breyana’s vehicle. Breyana informed him that she 

had a firearm in the vehicle.

While Breyana was driving, appellant took the firearm and pointed it at 

her. He shot Breyana three times as she was driving 60 m.p.h. down the freeway. 

The car veered off the freeway, and the 12-year-old grabbed the eight-month-old and 

jumped out of the vehicle. Appellant fled, going down a ravine, and leaving the 

firearm as he ran. The firearm was later recovered by police.

Appellant was charged with aggravated murder, murder, felonious 

assault, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, and having a weapon while 

under disability, along with one- and three-year firearm specifications. 

Appellant pled guilty to one count of murder, in violation of R.C. 

2903.02(B), along with a three-year firearm specification, and one count of having 
a weapon while under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(3). The remaining 

counts were nolled. 

The court proceeded immediately to sentencing. In imposing sentence, 

the court stated as follows:

The Court has considered all this information, all the principles and 

purposes of felony sentencing, and all the appropriate recidivism and 

seriousness factors.

This case is a tragedy, like all deaths I see in my court [sic] courtroom 

are tragedies. Once again, a direct result of drug and alcohol use. 

I see the prior criminal history of this defendant with multiple cycles 

for drug cases. Multiple chances on probation for those drug cases. 

Multiple chances for you to get sober. Multiple violations of your 

probation. And prison sentences.

So all those opportunities to avoid this were squandered by you. And 

that disease of addiction and alcoholism can’t be blamed for what you 

did. That’s what you did, whatever state of mind you were in.

It will have a lasting effect on you, your family, but most importantly, 

the victim’s family. Breyana’s family. Breyana’s family will have to live 

with this in a different way [than] you’ll have to live with this.

* * *

This case is especially troubling due to two young people being there in 

harm’s way. When you shoot someone driving a car, you put their lives 

at risk as well. An eight-month-old child. It’s just hard to fathom. The 

heroic efforts of a 12-year-old after witnessing her mother gunned 

down. It’s heart breaking and I feel their heartbreak.

So I’m going to impose the following sentence. I’m going to find that 

consecutive [sentences] are appropriate in this case. It’s necessary to 

protect our society and to punish you. You’ve squandered all your 

chances in the past. It’s not disproportionate for what you did. I can’t 

think of a worse violation of having a weapon under disability, when 

you take the life of someone with children as witnesses.
The harm is so great or unusual, a single term does not adequately 

reflect the seriousness, and the criminal history shows that consecutive 

terms are needed to protect the public as I said throughout this 

colloquy.

Appellant was sentenced to life in prison on the murder charge with the 

possibility of parole after 15 years, and three years on the firearm specification, to 

run consecutive to the sentence for the murder charge. Appellant was further 

sentenced to 36 months for the having-a-weapon-while-under-disability charge. 

The court imposed this sentence consecutively to the murder and firearm 

specification sentences, for a total sentence of life with the possibility of parole after 

21 years. 

Appellant then filed the instant appeal, raising one assignment of error 

for our review:

The trial court erred to appellant’s prejudice in imposing consecutive 

sentences, which were not supported by the record.

II. Law and Analysis

In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court’s 

proportionality finding was flawed. Appellant argues that the court’s emphasis on 

appellant taking the victim’s life while the children were in the vehicle related to the 

murder charge, not the having-a-weapon-while-under-disability charge, and thus 

the weapons charge should not have been imposed consecutively. With regard to 

the weapons charge, he contends that he did not bring the gun into the situation and 

simply acquired it while he was intoxicated during the altercation that led to the 

shooting. 
“In Ohio, sentences are presumed to run concurrent to one another 

unless the trial court makes the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).” State 

v. Gohagan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107948, 2019-Ohio-4070, ¶ 28. Trial courts 

must therefore engage in the three-tier analysis of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before 

imposing consecutive sentences. Id. First, the trial court must find that 

“consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish 

the offender.” Second, the trial court must find that “consecutive sentences are not 

disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the 

offender poses to the public.” Id. Third, the trial court must find that at least one of 

the following applies:

(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while 

the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction 

imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the 

Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense.

(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one 

or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the 

multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single 

prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the 

courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s 

conduct.

(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that 

consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future 

crime by the offender.

Id.

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states that when reviewing felony sentences, an 

“appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its 

discretion.” As the Supreme Court of Ohio has explained, when reviewing 
consecutive sentences, “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review 

the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate 

the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not 

support the sentencing court’s findings under’” R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Bonnell,

140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28, quoting R.C. 

2953.08(G)(2)(a).

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in its proportionality finding 

and takes issue with the court’s statement that it could not “think of a worse violation 

of having a weapon while under disability, when you take the life of someone with 

children as witnesses.” He asserts that the circumstances that occurred in this 

incident were not the “worst version” of the offense.

However, the trial court was not required to determine that appellant’s 

conduct constituted the “worst version” of the offense in order to satisfy the 

proportionality finding. As noted above, there are two findings for the “not 

disproportionate” provision, and the court must find both that the consecutive 

sentence is not disproportionate to (1) the seriousness of the offender’s conduct; and 

(2) the danger the offender poses to the public. The record herein supports both 

findings.

It is difficult to conceive of more serious or dangerous conduct than 

what occurred in this case. Appellant shot a mother three times, in front of two of 

her children, while simultaneously placing the children’s lives in danger, as 

passengers of the vehicle, along with anyone else who happened to be driving down 
the highway at that time. The elder child had to grab her baby sister to escape a 

moving vehicle while appellant fled. The fact that the gun belonged to the victim 

and was only grabbed by the appellant during the altercation does nothing to reduce 

the seriousness of the conduct or the danger posed by appellant. Appellant 

demonstrated a complete disregard for all human life.

Based upon our thorough review of the record, we clearly and 

convincingly find that the record supports the trial court’s finding that consecutive 

sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct and 

the danger he poses to the public. 

Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s 

convictions having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case 

remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, PRESIDING JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and

LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR