Court Opinion

ID: 9925779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 22:06:56.210667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.193848
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Polizzi, 2024-Ohio-142.]

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                    LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                      CASE NOS. 2020-L-016
                                                              2020-L-017
                  Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                    Criminal Appeals from the
         -v-                                        Court of Common Pleas

ANTHONY J. POLIZZI, JR.,
                                                    Trial Court Nos. 2017 CR 000853
                  Defendant-Appellant.                               2017 CR 001390

                                             OPINION

                                       Decided: January 16, 2024
                                         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).

Mark Roy Devan and William Christopher Livingston, Berkman, Gordon, Murray &
Devan, 55 Public Square, Suite 2200, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.

        {¶1}     On December 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its opinion in

State v. Gwynne, ---- Ohio St.3d ---, 2022-Ohio-4607, ---- N.E.3d --- (“December 2022

decision”). Pursuant to the authority announced in the December 2022 decision, the

underlying matter was remanded to this court to apply the Court’s holding to the

sentencing order imposed on appellant, Anthony J. Polizzi, Jr. See January 13, 2023

remand order. Shortly after the release of the December 2022 decision, the state of Ohio

moved the Court for reconsideration, which was granted. In anticipation of a potential
change in the Court’s judgment and rationale on reconsideration, this court elected to

hold the instant matter and await a new opinion. To this end, on October 25, 2023, in

State v. Gwynne, ---- Ohio St.3d ---, 2023-Ohio-3851, ---- N.E.3d --- (“October 2023

decision”), the court vacated the December 2022 decision. We now proceed to consider

the remand order in light of the October 2023 decision.

      {¶2}   Appellant was originally indicted on 24 counts alleging sexual contact and

sexual conduct offenses against one of the victims; later he was indicted on 56 counts

alleging sexual contact and sexual conduct offenses committed against a separate

victim—each victim was a high school student and appellant was their teacher. On March

26, 2018, appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition in

each case, felonies of the fourth degree and three counts of sexual battery in each case,

felonies of the third degree. At sentencing, the trial court ordered the maximum sentence

on each charge in both cases, to run consecutively with one another, for an aggregate

prison term of 396 months (or 33 years). On appeal, this court determined there was no

support in the record for certain findings made by the trial court. This court vacated the

sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing. See State v. Polizzi, 11th Dist. Lake

Nos. 2018-L-063, 2018-L-064, 2019-Ohio-2505.

      {¶3}    Following a remand to the trial court, appellant was resentenced to a total

term of 358 consecutive months in prison for eight sex offenses committed against the

two victims while he was their high school teacher. In particular, appellant was sentenced

to fifty-four months on each of six counts of felony-three sexual battery and 17 months on

each of two counts of felony-four gross sexual imposition. In total, appellant was ordered

to serve nearly 30 years in prison. Appellant timely appealed to this court and, in State

                                            2

Case Nos. 2020-L-016 and 2020-L-017
v. Polizzi, 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2020-L-016, 2020-L-017, 2021-Ohio-244, this court

affirmed the sentence, via a 2-1 majority.            Appellant filed an application for

reconsideration, which was denied.

       {¶4}   The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court and the case was accepted

for discretionary review and held pending a decision in Gwynne. In Gwynne, the Court

accepted the following issues for review: “(1) whether trial courts must consider the overall

aggregate prison term to be imposed when making the consecutive-sentence findings

under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4),” and “(2) what scope of an appellate court’s authority is under

R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to review consecutive sentences.” See December 2022 decision,

2022-Ohio-4607, ¶ 1. The Supreme Court of Ohio held:

              that based on the language of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the
              consecutive-sentence findings are not simply threshold
              findings that, once made, permit any amount of consecutively
              stacked individual sentences. Rather these findings must be
              made in consideration of the aggregate term to be imposed.
              Additionally, we hold that appellate review of consecutive
              sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not require
              appellate courts to defer to the sentencing court’s findings in
              any manner. Instead, the plain language of the statute
              requires appellate courts to review the record de novo and
              decide whether the record clearly and convincingly does not
              support the consecutive-sentence findings.

See December 2022 decision, ¶ 1.

       {¶5}   Upon release of the December 2022 decision, the state moved for

reconsideration, which was granted. And, recently, in its October 2023 decision, the

Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and vacated its December 2022 decision.

       {¶6}   This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). That

subsection provides, in pertinent part:

                                             3

Case Nos. 2020-L-016 and 2020-L-017
             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:

             (a)    That the record does not support the sentencing court’s
             findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14[, the
             section governing consecutive sentences] * * *;

             (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

      {¶7}   Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), separate prison terms for multiple offenses

may be ordered to be served consecutively if the court finds it is necessary to protect the

public from future crime or to punish the offender; that consecutive sentences are not

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

offender poses to the public; and if the court also finds any of the factors in R.C.

2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) are present. Those factors include the following:

             (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.

                                             4

Case Nos. 2020-L-016 and 2020-L-017
              (c)    The offender’s history of criminal conduct
              demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to
              protect the public from future crime by the offender.

       {¶8}   In its October 2023 decision, the Supreme Court, by way of a plurality

decision, determined: (1) the conclusion of the December 2022 decision, requiring an

appellate court to review the record in consecutive-sentencing cases de novo, is contrary

to the plain language of the statute; (2) R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) does not require express

consideration of the aggregate prison term that eventuates from the imposition of

consecutive sentences; and (3) the record did not clearly and convincingly fail to support

the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. October 2023 decision, 2023-Ohio-3851,

at ¶ 16, 18-24. Accordingly, the October 2023 decision vacated the December 2022

decision and affirmed the appellate court’s judgment in Gwynne.

       {¶9}   The Court’s October 2023 decision is a plurality opinion, which generally

indicates a lack of an express agreement on the rationale leading to the disposition of the

case. In the absence of a majority on the issues of law developed in the October 2023

decision, it is not entirely clear what weight appellate courts will (or should) afford the lead

opinion’s discussion moving forward. Nevertheless, the October 2023 decision expressly

vacated the December 2022 decision by way of granting reconsideration. As a result, we

conclude the October 2023 decision essentially reinstated consecutive-sentencing

appellate review which existed prior to the December 2022 decision.

       {¶10} With the foregoing in mind, this court, in Polizzi, 2021-Ohio-244, analyzed

the trial court’s sentencing order under the consecutive-sentencing structure in place prior

to the December 2022 decision and made the following determinations:

                                               5

Case Nos. 2020-L-016 and 2020-L-017
             As stated on the record at the resentencing hearing and in the
             resentencing judgment entry, the trial court found that
             consecutive sentences “are necessary to protect the public
             from future crime or to punish the Defendant”; “are not
             disproportionate to the Defendant’s conduct and the danger
             the Defendant poses to the public”; and, applying subsection
             (b), that “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 committed by
             the Defendant 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
             Defendant’s conduct.”
             Appellant takes issue with all three findings. He contends the
             record does not support that (1) he poses a danger to the
             public; (2) consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to
             his conduct and the danger he poses to the public; and (3) the
             harm caused by his offenses was so great or unusual that a
             single prison term would not adequately reflect the
             seriousness of his conduct.

             With regard to the first argument, we note the trial court found,
             as required under the statute, that consecutive service is
             necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish
             appellant. Whether the record supports the former is not
             dispositive, and appellant does not take issue with the latter.
             Accordingly, this argument is not well taken.

             We further conclude, with regard to the third argument, that
             the record supports the trial court’s finding that a single prison
             term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of
             appellant’s conduct. There were two victims of appellant’s
             conduct, multiple offenses, and each has suffered enduring
             emotional and psychological harm. There also exists a valid
             concern with the scope of appellant’s remorse for his conduct.
             Appellant should be held accountable to these victims with
             consecutive sentences.

             Finally, we find no merit with appellant’s second argument.
             We cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does
             not support the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences
             are not disproportionate to appellant’s conduct and the danger
             he poses to the public. The offenses appellant committed
             against the 2008 victim occurred during a nine-month period
             of time, and those committed against the 2010 victim occurred
                                             6

Case Nos. 2020-L-016 and 2020-L-017
             during a two-month period of time. The record demonstrates
             that appellant had no criminal history prior to these offenses
             and no juvenile adjudications. Appellant’s sex offender
             evaluation reports a low to moderate risk of recidivism, which
             is further supported by the fact that he has no criminal record
             subsequent to these offenses. Even so, without minimizing
             the fact that appellant has not reoffended, appellant’s conduct
             was deplorable and caused undeniable psychological harm to
             the victims. It is further apparent that appellant’s lack of
             genuine remorse and failure to appreciate the consequences
             his actions have had on the victims present a danger to the
             public. According to some of the statements and interviews
             included in the record, appellant spent time grooming his
             victims in order to obtain their consent and then threatened
             them with expulsion if they told anyone about the sexual
             conduct. In fact, this conduct resurrected two years after the
             2010 relationship ended by appellant sending an explicit,
             surreptitious message.

             This is not to say there are no concerns with the overall length
             of the harsh sentence imposed here. It is, in fact, even a 10-
             year increase over what the state had recommended.
             However, the sentence is within the range permitted by law,
             and our review is limited, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), to
             whether the record clearly and convincingly does not support
             the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The
             options before the trial court with regard to the imposition of
             consecutive sentences ranged from an aggregate term of 71
             months to an aggregate term of 358 months in prison. This
             broad range of the potential prison term magnifies the need
             for more meaningful review of felony sentences than currently
             permitted under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a). Based on the
             pronouncement in [State v.] Gwynne[, 158 Ohio St.3d 279,
             2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169] that the R.C.
             2929.11        and      2929.12       factors    only      apply
             to individual sentences, what is there to guide a trial court
             and/or a reviewing court when confronted with such a broad
             range of potential sentencing? Felony sentencing statutes
             must be read as a whole, and “by the express language
             of R.C. 2929.12(A), R.C. 2929.11’s sentencing purposes
             and R.C. 2929.12’s seriousness and recidivism factors are no
             less operative when a trial court is imposing consecutive
             sentences than when a trial court is imposing an individual
             sentence.” Gwynne, supra, at ¶ 67 (Donnelly, J., dissenting).
             “Appellate review adds an important dimension to
             fundamental justice and is an important check on trial courts’
                                            7

Case Nos. 2020-L-016 and 2020-L-017
             sentencing decisions. To bolster the public’s confidence in the
             justice system, appellate courts must [be permitted to]
             exercise the statutory powers granted to them by the General
             Assembly to determine the proper application of the laws to a
             trial court’s sentencing decisions.” Id. at ¶ 90 (Donnelly, J.,
             dissenting).

             We are bound to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court
             of Ohio, however, which clearly provides that R.C.
             2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to substitute
             its judgment for that of the trial court. See Jones et al., supra,
             at ¶ 30.

(Emphasis sic.) Polizzi at ¶ 43-49.

      {¶11} In light of the Supreme Court’s October 2023 decision, vacating the

December 2022 decision upon which the instant remand was premised, we re-adopt the

above reasoning and holding from Polizzi, 2021-Ohio-244.           Appellant’s consecutive

sentences are therefore affirmed.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                             8

Case Nos. 2020-L-016 and 2020-L-017